Lane Cove Local Planning Panel 1 May 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting

1 May 2018, 5:00pm

 

LC_WebBanner

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Panel Members,

 

Notice is given of the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers, 48 Longueville Rd, Lane Cove on Tuesday 1 May 2018 commencing at 5:00pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Craig - GMYours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting Procedures

 

The Lane Cove Local Planning Panel (LCLPP) meeting is chaired by The Hon David Lloyd QC. The meetings and other procedures of the Panel will be undertaken in accordance with the Lane Cove Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Charter and any guidelines issued by the General Manager.

The order of business is listed in the Agenda on the next page. That order will be followed unless the Panel resolves to modify the order at the meeting. This may occur for example where the members of the public in attendance are interested in specific items on the agenda.

Members of the public may address the Panel for a maximum of 3 minutes during the public forum which is held at the beginning of the meeting. All persons wishing to address the Panel must register prior to the meeting by contacting Council’s Office Manager – Environmental Services on 9911 3611. Speakers must address the Chair and speakers and Panel Members will not enter into general debate or ask questions during this forum. Where there are a large number of objectors with a common interest, the Panel may, in its absolute discretion, hear a representative of those persons.

Following the conclusion of the public forum the Panel will convene in closed session to conduct deliberations and make decisions. The Panel will announce each decision separately after deliberations on that item have concluded. Furthermore the Panel may close part of a meeting to the public in order to protect commercial information of a confidential nature.

Minutes of LCLPP meetings are published on Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au by 5pm on the Friday following the meeting. If you have any enquiries or wish to obtain information in relation to LCLPP, please contact Council’s Office Manager – Environmental Services on 9911 3611.

Please note meetings held in the Council Chambers are Webcast. Webcasting allows the community to view proceedings from a computer without the need to attend the meeting. The webcast will include vision and audio of members of the public that speak during the Public Forum. Please ensure while speaking to the Panel that you are respectful to other people and use appropriate language. Lane Cove Council accepts no liability for any defamatory or offensive remarks made during the course of these meetings.

The audio from these meetings is also recorded for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of the minutes and the recordings are not disclosed to any third party under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, except as allowed under section 18(1) or section 19(1) of the PPIP Act, or where Council is compelled to do so by court order, warrant or subpoena or by any other legislation.

 

 

 

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

 

public forum

 

Members of the public may address the Panel to make a submission.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      LANE COVE LOCAL PLANNING PANEL MEETING - 10 APRIL 2018

 

 

 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Reports

 

2.       Supplementy Report - 66 Arabella Street, Longueville

 

3.       14 Gay Street Lane Cove

 

Orders Of The Day  

 

 

 

 

  


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel   1 May 2018

Supplementy Report - 66 Arabella Street, Longueville

 

 

Subject:          Supplementy Report - 66 Arabella Street, Longueville     

Record No:    DA17/180-01 - 22377/18

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Michael Stephens 

 

 

 

Property:

66 Arabella Street, Longueville

DA No:

DA180/2017

Date Lodged:

23 November 2017

Cost of Work:

$1,022,175

Owner:

Lytton Jia Jun Li

Applicant:        

Susan Teng - H3 Architects

 

Executive Summary

 

On 6 February 2018 Council’s Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel, as it was formerly known, considered Development Application DA180/2017 for alteration and additions to an existing dwelling house, construction of a new garage, driveway, fencing and associated landscaping. The application was recommended for refusal. On the request of the applicant it was resolved that:

 

“The determination of this application was not considered by the Panel at the request of the applicant in order to allow further amended plans to be renotified and assessed.  If identified issues remain unresolved the matter may subsequently be referred back to the Panel for consideration and determination”.

 

The applicant submitted amended plans that had been produced on the evening. The application was renotified on the 1st of March 2018 for a period of 14 days. A submission was received from each of the adjoining neighbours being 64 and 66A Arabella Street, the opposite neighbour at 45 Arabella Street and a resident at 60 Arabella Street. These submissions generally raised similar concerns as their original objections.  

 

The revised proposal deleted the contentious third storey element of the original application, and now complies with the LEP height standard.

 

Given that a number of the identified issues raised in the original assessment report (AT-3 and AT-4) and submissions remain unresolved a revised merit based assessment has been undertaken and is referred back to the Panel for determination. On balance the application is now recommended for approval subject to draft conditions.     

 

Notification Plan and Site Location Plans attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

Revised Proposal

 

The following amendments have been made to the proposed development:

 

Third Storey

·          The third storey elements of the previously proposed bedroom, bathroom and study at the upper storey level has been removed and replaced by a storage area within the roof form;

·          The existing slopped roof design on the northwestern side has been retained although has been increased in pitch to accommodate a hallway along the centre portion of the floor providing access to the existing bedroom and the proposed storage area; and

·          The roof now complies with the development standard for Height of Buildings of 9.5m.

 

Lift well 

·          The lift well, wraparound stairs and landing / foyer areas have been shifted 500mm to the south west; and

·          The lift overrun has been lowered by 500mm.

 

Carport

·          The height of the carport has been reduced by 350mm and is now only 850mm higher than the existing carport structure.

 

Lower Ground Floor Alterations

·          The laundry has been relocated to the lower ground floor from its existing location on the ground floor.

 

Ground Floor Alterations

·          A study has been proposed on the ground floor adjacent to the front entryway where the laundry was previously located; and

·          A WC has been proposed off the kitchen where the laundry was previously located.

 

Upper Floor Alterations

·          A small balcony has been proposed at the western corner of the dwelling measuring approximately 4m2.

 

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

A revised compliance summary has been provided below. Compliance with relevant controls that have changed has been indicated in Italics.

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2 Low Density                                 Site Area: 629.6m²

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.43:1

(GFA= 270.85m2)

0.5:1 (Max 314.8m2)

Yes

Height of Buildings

9.5m

9.5m

Yes

 

FSR Calculation:

                Ground Floor = 84.5m2

            First Floor = 110.65m2

            Second Floor = 75.7m2

FSR = (Total Floorspace 270.85m2 / Site area 629.6m2) :1

FSR= 0.43:1

 

 

 

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

25m

Consistent with area or 7.5m

Yes

Side setback (min)

Carport

Southern = 0.9m

Northern = 5.2m

 

Dwelling

Southern - Existing

Northern - 2.6m

1200mm single storey

1500mm two storey

 

Yes

Yes

 

 

Unchanged

Yes

Rear setback (min)

Unchanged

<1000m²: 8m or 25%

>1000m²: 10m or 35%

Unchanged

Wall Height (max) (max parapet of 600mm)

Lift / Stair well = 7.6 - 9.1m

7.0m

No

Maximum Ridge height

N/A

9.5m

N/A

Subfloor height (max)

Unchanged

1.0m

Unchanged

Number of Storeys (max)

3

2

No

Landscaped area (min) (Minimum width of 1m required to be included in area)

34.1% - (215m2)

35%

No

Cut and Fill (max)

Nil

1m

Yes

Solar Access

Achieved to subject site and adjoining properties.

 

There would be some additional overshadowing to the adjoining southern property throughout the day generally moving from the front to rear portion of the building caused by the stair/ lift addition and carport.

3 hrs to a portion of windows of habitable rooms and reasonable access to recreation areas between 9am and 3pm on 21st June for the subject site and neighbouring dwellings

Yes

Provide for view sharing

Refer to submission of 45 Arabella Street.

 

Yes, acceptable

Heritage Conservation

N/A

 

N/A

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

Unchanged

3m

Yes

Private open space

Unchanged

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

BASIX

Cert A285761_02 (to be updated)

Required

Yes, subject to draft condition 25.

 

 

Car Parking

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

2

2

Yes

Driveway width

3.2m

3m at the lot boundary

Acceptable

 

 

Carports within the Front Setback & Garages Facing the Street

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Setback of Carport Posts (min)

8.67m

1m from street boundary

Yes

% of Allotment Width (garages & carports)

6m

50% of lot width or 6m, whichever is the lesser

Yes

 

Fences

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front fence height (max)

1.2m

Partially open design.

Solid:   900mm

Lightweight:     1.2m

Yes,

Side and rear fences

Unchanged

1.8m

Unchanged

 

Outbuildings

 

 

Proposed

Code

Complies

Overall Height (m) (max)

4.45m

3.6m

No

External wall height (max)

N/A

2.4m

N/A

Maximum floor space

N/A partially open.

50 m²

N/A

No of Storeys

1

1

Yes

Setback

1m

900mm

Yes

 

REFERRALS

 

The proposed amendments raise no concern regarding referrals.

 

Both Council’s Development Engineer and Tree Assessment officer were satisfied with the proposal as indicated in the original assessment report and recommended draft conditions to be imposed should consent be granted. These draft conditions have been included in the recommendation of this report.

 

Lane Cove LOCAL Environmental Plan 2009 (Section 4.15C)

 

The proposed development as amended is permissible within the zone and meets with the development standards for Floor Space Ratio and Height of Buildings.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

Deemed SEPP, Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment0 2005 and the Foreshores and Waterways Development Control Plan 2005

 

The amended plans improve the proposed developments compliance with both instruments, which the assessment report previously considered to be acceptable.

 

Variations to Council’s Codes/PolicIes (seCTIONS 4.15c (1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c))

 

The preceding policy assessment table identifies controls that the proposal does not comply with.  Each of the departures is discussed below.

 

Control

Proposed

Comment

Council support

DCP Pt C 1.7.1 Height c) Number of storeys - 2

3 - Hallway and landing on upper storey.

See discussion below

Yes

DCP Pt C 1.7.1 Height a) - 7.0m (max) External Wall Height

9.1m

See discussion below

Yes

DCP Pt C 1.10.3

Outbuilding Height - 3.6m

4.45m

See discussion below

Yes

DCP Pt C 1.5 Landscaped Areas - 35%

34.1%

Variation supported in original proposal

 

Number of Storeys

 

The amended plans have removed the third storey bedroom, study and bathroom. The reconfiguration of the upper storey with regard to the stair/lift well and storage area within the roof space results in the hallway and landing area being three storeys.

 

It is noted that the DCP definition of storey does not include a space that contains only a stair or lift shaft.

 

The third storey element services the three levels of the dwelling which is of a stepped design across the site due to the cross fall. The area is located centrally within the dwelling, is minimal in floor space and predominantly retained within the existing building envelope. The third storey element complies with the LEP Height standard and does not result in a material loss of amenity for surrounding dwellings with regard to overshadowing, overlooking, bulk and massing or view loss. 

 

External Wall Height

 

The external wall height of the stair / lift well is excessive although is considered acceptable as the stairs and lift are required to service each of the three levels. The resulting built form when viewed from the adjoining property would have minor although reasonable visual impact although the development benefits from being screened by existing vegetation including hedging along the side boundary. The external curved wall of the stair well is setback a minimum of 2.6m where the external wall height is a more reasonable 7.6m. The maximum point where the height reaches 9.1m is setback further at 4.2m. The applicant has offered to install obscure glazing to ensure that the stairwell does not result in overlooking to the adjoining dwelling. Given that the third storey bedroom, study and bathroom have been deleted there are no longer cumulative visual impacts of the additional bulk and massing created by accepting the variation to the external wall height when viewed from the adjoining northern property.

 

Outbuildings - Height

 

The DCP allows for consideration of outbuildings greater than 3.6m in height where the site slopes, the setback is a minimum of 900mm and the amenity of adjoining properties is not materially affected.

 

The proposed carport has been raised in order to address the significant fall of the property. A setback of 900mm has been proposed to the southern boundary.

 

The carport does not result in any additional overshadowing to the southern property that would fall across windows or areas of private open space.

 

There would be a minimal impact of approximately a third of an existing water view from the dwelling house located across the road that is considered reasonable in the circumstances of the case. An assessment has been provided in response to their submission below regarding this matter.

 

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION (Section 4.15C(1)(d))

 

The revised application was renotified to enable neighbours to comment on the amendments. Four objections were received being from 60 Arabella Street, 64 Arabella Street, 66A Arabella Street and 45 Arabella Street.

 

The objections are summarized below and comments provided.

 

45 Arabella Street (Property adjacent across the road)

 

·          The water view over the building to the left hand (northern) side would be impacted by the lift overrun and roof of the stairwell.

 

The current view gained over the northern portion of the dwelling can is characterised as glimpses of water and the land water interface of Northwood and Greenwich Point. The view is generally obscured by the Bottle Brush Street Tree located in front of the subject property. Whilst there is potential for this tree to be pruned in accordance with Council’s DCP this is likely to be a reoccurring issue.

 

The applicant has revised the proposal on review of this submission and has shifted the lift / stairwell structure 500mm to the south. The height was also reduced by 500mm by the amended plans. With these two amendments, the proposal now complies with the LEP Height standard of 9.5m. 

 

Views are gained from the ground floor living room and front balcony of the objector’s property. It is noted that views from the first floor of the objectors dwelling are more significant and are worthy of being retained. These views are unaffected by the proposed development. Whilst it is recognised less time is spent in these areas of the dwelling it is evident that substantial views from the property are retained.

 

The element of the proposed development that results in the potential view loss is the vertical circulation area and includes a lift.  The installation of residential lifts are becoming more desirable to meet the needs of property owners which is considered a reasonable proposal in comparison to the originally proposed third storey bedroom and study.

 

Whilst it is noted that there would be a minimal loss of views the proposed development is considered to meet the principle of view sharing when the whole property is considered. The proposed development has been designed to respond to the constraints of the site and the excessive elements removed. The potential loss of view is now considered to be reasonable given the proposed amendments. 

 

·          The water view to the right hand (southern) side of the subject sites dwelling would be impact by the height of the carport. 

 

The amended proposal has reduced the height of the carport by 350mm. A small view corridor is currently available along the southern side of the property and includes a portion of the Harbour and the land water interface of Woolwich. The carports roof would result in the loss of the lower portion of this view from the ground floor of the objector’s property. Views from the upper storey remain.

 

Given the constraints of the site the proposed elevated carport is considered reasonable in order to deal with the topography of the site. The proportion of the view loss is minimal and considered reasonable in the circumstances.

 

64 Arabella Street (Northeastern neighbour)

 

·          That there be no increase to the height of the building.

 

The sloped roof has been altered to accommodate the internal configuration of the upper storey although the originally proposed bedroom, study and bathroom have been deleted which were part of the cause for the addition bulk and massing as described in the assessment report. The roof generally retains the same form as the existing sloped roof. The change would generally be indiscernible and now complies with the LEP height standard. 

 

The lift and stair well has been retained although on further amendment (Rev C) has shifted a further 500mm from the shared boundary. The lift overrun has been reduced in height by 500mm and now complies with the LEP height standard. Whilst it is noted that the external wall height is excessive the impact would be acceptable due to the proposed setback of between 2.6-4.2m, volume of screening vegetation and how the proposed additions have been integrated into the form of the existing dwelling.  In regard to an original point of objection to the stairwell resulting in overlooking, the applicant has proposed that the glazing of the stairwell be obscured. Draft Condition 2 would require plans to be amended to reflect the obscure glazing prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. 

 

The bulk and massing of the proposed additions would not result in a loss of views for this adjoining property, overshadowing or overlooking.

 

·          That the proposed skylights result in overlooking to the adjoining property.

 

The proposed skylights within the roof form of the storage area would not result in overlooking as this room is non-habitable and the sill height of the windows being 1.5m above finished floor level would prevent a view being gained downwards to the adjoining property.

 

60 Arabella Street (neighbour located further to the north)

 

It is noted that 60 Arabella Street lodged a submission supporting the statements of 64 Arabella Street and also reiterated the following point.

 

·          The existing dwelling results in overlooking to the living area of 60 Arabella Street which is to be considered when assessing the proposed development.

 

60 Arabella Street is located three properties to the north east. The proposed development as amended would not result in any potential overlooking to be considered.

 

 

 

 

 

66A Arabella Street (Southwestern neighbour)

 

·          Overshadowing to the side of the dwelling at 66A Arabella that includes bedrooms and balconies.

 

The adjoining property retains reasonable solar access considering the provisions of the DCP. The proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling would result in some additional overshadowing due to the lift/stair well. The carport would overshadow the adjoining property although shadowing would not fall across windows or areas of private open space. The additional bulk and massing of the additions to the dwelling house are responsive to the topography of the site and considered acceptable. The resulting overshadowing would have reasonable impact to the central side courtyard although full sunlight is retained during the mid morning portion of the day. There is also partial sunlight available in the hours either side.

 

·          Additional windows have been proposed on the first floor that would result in overlooking to the adjoining property.

 

The aforementioned windows serve an ensuite and the master bedroom. The bedroom window replaces an existing window within the same location although has different dimensions. Bathrooms and bedrooms are considered low use and the window located within the bedroom is within the same location as the existing window. The proposed windows are considered acceptable and are unlikely to result in undue overlooking to the adjoining property.

 

·          The rear covered stairs change the aspect at the rear of the property that is currently open and green.

 

The proposed covered stairs provides access to the lower terrace area. The structure generally relates to the existing topography of the site which drops steeply to the rear. The outlook from the adjoining property is generally of the iconic view of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and large expanses of the harbor. Regardless the proposed structure would be screened by the existing extensive vegetation located on the objector’s property along the boundary. The proposed structure does not result in adverse impacts to the views enjoyed at the rear of the objector’s property.

 

Conclusion

 

The matters in relation to Section 4.15C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been satisfied.

 

The application meets with the Floor Space Ratio and Height standards as required in the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 and generally meets with the Residential Development Objectives in the Lane Cove Development Control Plan.

 

The amended proposal has responded to the reasons for refusal proposed regarding the original development application. The applicant has removed the majority of the third storey element including the portion that breached the LEP Height standard and both lowered the height and shifted the location of the lift well to ensure that it too now complies with the prescribed Height standard.

 

The proposed development would not unduly impact the amenity of the two adjoining dwellings with regard to solar access, overlooking or it’s imposition of bulk and massing. The neighbour located opposite at 45 Arabella Street would be impacted by a minor loss of water views although when considering that the proposal generally complies with Council’s controls and the principles of view sharing this impact is considered acceptable.

 

On balance the proposed development would be reasonable and therefore is recommended for approval subject to draft conditions.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to section 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Panel grants development consent to Development Application DA180/2017 for Alteration and additions to an existing dwelling house, construction of a new carport, driveway, fencing and associated landscaping on Lot 301 DP829591 known as 66 Arabella Street, Longueville subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Approved Plans/Documents. Except where otherwise provided in this consent, the development is to be carried out strictly in accordance with the following plans (stamped approved by Council) and support documents:

 

Plan No/Reference

Author

Drawing No. REV

Date

Lower Ground Floor and Ground Floor Plans

H3 Architects

DA 1.03 C

11.04.18

Level 1 and Roof Plans

H3 Architects

DA 1.04 C

11.04.18

East and West Elevations

H3 Architects

DA 2.03 C

11.04.18

North Elevation

H3 Architects

DA 2.01 B

09.02.18

South Elevation

H3 Architects

DA 2.02 B

09.02.18

Sections A B C and D

H3 Architects

DA 3.01 C

11.04.18

 

The Development must be carried out in accordance with the plans approved under this condition.  Where any inconsistencies occur between the conditions of this consent and the drawings/documents referred to above, the conditions of this consent prevail.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.

 

2.         Window Treatment: The glazing surrounding the stairwell identified as W01 and W02 on the Northern Elevation is to be obscure. Details are to be amended prior to the issue of the Construction certificate.

 

            Reason: In order to prevent overlooking to the private open space of the adjoining property.

 

3.         Construction Certificate: The submission of a Construction Certificate and its issue by Council or Private Certifier PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION WORK commencing.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement

 

4.         BCA Requirement.  All building works are required to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Reason: Statutory requirement

 

5.         Sydney Water.  The approved plans must be submitted to Sydney Water online approval portal “Sydney Water Tap In”, please refer to web site www.sydneywater.com.au. This is to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. An approval receipt with conditions shall be issued by Sydney Water (if determined to be satisfactory) and is to be submitted to the accredited certifier prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement

 

6.         Residential Building Works – Insurance.  Approval is subject to the condition that the builder or person who does the residential building work complies with the applicable requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989 whereby a person must not contract to do any residential building work unless a contract of insurance that complies with this Act is in force in relation to the proposed work.  It is the responsibility of the builder or person who is to do the work to satisfy Council or the PCA that they have complied with the applicable requirements of Part 6.  Council as the PCA will not release the Construction Certificate until evidence of Home Owners Warranty Insurance or an owner builder permit is submitted.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement

 

7.         Occupation Certificate: An Occupation Certificate being obtained from the Principal Certifier (PC) before the occupation of the building.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement

 

8.         Work Hours:  All demolition, building construction work, including earthworks, deliveries of building materials to and from the site to be restricted to the following hours:-

 

Monday to Friday (inclusive)              7.00am to 5.30pm

Saturday                                             7.00am to 4.00pm

No work to be carried out on Sundays or any public holidays.

 

A Notice/Sign showing permitted working hours and types of work permitted during those hours, including the applicant’s phone number, project manager or site foreman, shall be displayed at the front of the site.

 

Reason: Council Policy to protect the amenity of the locality.

 

9.         Storage of Materials: Stockpiles of topsoil, sand, aggregate, spoil or other material capable of being moved by water to be stored clear of any drainage line, easement, natural watercourse, footpath, kerb or roadside.

 

            Reason: To protect the environment.

 

10.       Amenity: The development shall be conducted in such a manner so as not to interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood in respect of noise, vibration, smell, dust, waste water, waste products or otherwise.

 

11.       Storage of Materials/Skips: Depositing or storage of builder's materials on the footpath or roadways within the Municipality without first obtaining approval of Council is PROHIBITED.

 

Separate approval must be obtained from Council's Works and Urban Services Department PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT of any building waste container ("Skip") in a public place.

 

            Reason: Public Safety

 

12.       Site Signage: Prior to the commencement of any construction work associated with the development, the Applicant shall erect a sign(s) at the construction site and in a prominent position at the site boundary where the sign can be viewed from the nearest public place.  The sign(s) shall indicate:-

a)                  the name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifier (PC);

b)                  the name of the person in charge of the construction site and telephone number at which that person may be contacted outside working hours; and

c)                  a statement that unauthorised entry to the construction site is prohibited.

 

The signs shall be maintained for the duration of construction works.

 

            Reason: Statutory Requirement:

 

 

13.       Concrete Waste: The cleaning out of ready-mix concrete trucks, wheelbarrows and the like into Council's gutter is PROHIBITED.

 

            Reason: To protect the environment.

 

14.       PC Inspections: Where Lane Cove Council is appointed as the Principal Certifier (PC), it will be necessary to book an inspection for each of the following stages during the construction process. 

 

a)                         The pier holes/pads before filling with concrete;

b)                         All reinforcement prior to filling with concrete;

c)                         The dampcourse level, ant capping, anchorage and floor framing before the floor material is laid;

d)                         Framework including roof and floor members when completed and prior to covering;

e)                         Installation of steel beams and columns prior to covering.

f)                          Waterproofing of wet areas;

i)                          Stormwater drainage lines prior to backfilling; and

k)                         Completion.

 

            Forty eight (48) hours notice must be given prior to the inspection being required

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

15.       Engineers Details: Structural Engineer's details being submitted PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE for the following:-

a)         underpinning;

b)         retaining walls;

c)         footings;

d)         reinforced concrete work;

e)         structural steelwork;

f)          upper level floor framing;

 

            Reason: To ensure structural adequacy.

 

16.       Structural Capacity - Additional Loading: Structural Engineer's Certificate being submitted certifying that existing building is capable of carrying the additional loads.  Such Certificate being submitted PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

            Reason: To ensure structural adequacy.

 

17.       Metal Roof Material: All metal roofs being of a ribbed metal profile, in a mid to dark colour range with an anti glare finish.

 

            Reason: to reduce sun reflection and glare to protect the amenity of the surrounding             resident.

           

18.       Check Survey: A check survey certificate is to be submitted at the completion of:-

a.                     Damp course level;

b.         The roof framing;

c.                     Lift shaft, and

d.                     The completion of works.

 

Note:   All levels are to relate to the reduced levels as noted on the approved architectural plans and should be cross-referenced to Australian Height Datum.

 

            Reason: To ensure the development is in accordance with the consent.

 

19.       Asbestos Removal: The removal, handling and disposal of asbestos from building sites being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Regulations.  Details of the method of removal to be submitted PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY DEMOLITION WORKS.

 

            Reason: Public Safety

 

20.       Demolition: The demolition works being confined within the boundaries of the site.

 

            Reason: Public Safety

 

21.       Public Domain Cleanliness: All spillage deposited on the footpaths or roadways to be removed at the completion of each day’s work.

 

            Reason: Protect the amenity and safety of the public domain.

 

22.       Site Fencing: The site being properly fenced to prevent access of unauthorised persons outside of working hours.

 

            Reason: Public Safety.

 

Demolitions Compliance: Compliance with Australian Standard 2601 - The Demolition of Structures.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement

 

23.       Effect of Covenants: It should be understood that this consent in no way relieves the owners or applicant from any obligation to obtain any other approval which may be required under any covenant affecting the land or otherwise nor relieve a person from the legal civil consequences of not complying with any such covenant.

 

            Reason: Legal requirement

 

24.       Long Service Levy.  Compliance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; payment of the Long Service Levy payable under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 (or, where such a levy is payable by installments, the first installment of the levy) – All building works in excess of $25,000 are subject to the payment of a Long Service Levy at the rate of 0.35%.

 

            Reason:  Statutory requirement

 

25.       Basix - Compliance with all the conditions of the BASIX Certificate No A285761_02 once amended to reflect the approved plans.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

Tree Preservation Conditions

 

26.       Preservation of Trees. Lane Cove Council regulates the Preservation of Trees and Vegetation in the Lane Cove local government area in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in non-rural areas) 2017. Part 2 Section 7(1) of the SEPP states “A person must not clear vegetation in any non-rural area of the State to which Part 3 applies without the authority conferred by a permit granted by the council under that Part.” Clearing of vegetation includes “a) cut down, fell, uproot, kill, poison, ringbark, burn or otherwise destroy the vegetation, or b) lop or otherwise remove a substantial part of the vegetation.” Removal of trees or vegetation protected by the regulation is an offence against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The maximum penalty that may be imposed in respect to any such offence is $1,100,000. The co-operation of all residents is sought in the preservation of trees in the urban environment and protection of the bushland character of the Municipality. All enquiries concerning the preservation of trees and vegetation must be made at the Council Chambers, Lane Cove.

 

            Reason: To protect the Environment

 

27.       Tree protection measures are to be installed and approved in writing by the project Arborist prior to any demolition or works on site.

 

            Reason: To ensure trees that are to be retained are protected throughout the works. 

 

28.       Trees 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are to be retained and protected during the construction period in accordance with the Arborists recommendations (Ents Tree Consulting  report dated 13 November 2017) page 6 and the Tree Protection Plan (Appendix 4a page 12).  All protection must be installed PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

            Reason: To ensure the development is in accordance with the consent.

 

29.       A Project Arborist of minimal AQF Level 5 qualification is appointed to oversee/monitor retained on a bi-monthly (two months) frequency to monitor trees condition during construction and sign off on tree protection measures.  Trees are to be monitored throughout construction and a certificate produced upon completion demonstrating the trees have been maintained in adequate condition.  All certificates are to be submitted to the Principal Certifier or Council prior to the issue of Occupation Certificate.

 

            Reason:  To ensure the trees to be retained are protected throughout the works.  

 

30.       This consent gives approval for the removal of trees 1-5 inclusive upon issue of the construction certificate only.

 

            Reason: To ensure that development is in accordance with the consent and that trees are only removed once it is known that the development may proceed

           

31.       Trees removed as part of this consent must be replaced at a ratio of no less than 1:1 and all plantings/landscaping must comply with part J Landscaping of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 and be installed prior to the issue of the occupation certificate.

 

            Reason: To retain the overall landscaping of the locality.

 

32.       All structures located outside of the existing driveway footprint on the northern edge are to be cantilevered as per the Arborists comments in section 4.8 (Ents Tree Consulting report dated 13 November 2017).  No excavation works are to be carried out outside of the northern edge of the existing driveway.

 

            Reason: To minimise disturbance to trees located on the north eastern boundary identified as trees 11-15 inclusive. 

 

33.       Pursuant to Section 80A(6)(a) and (7) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant must, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, provide security in the amount of $2000 (by way of cash deposit with the Council, or a guarantee satisfactory to the Council) for the payment of the cost of making good any damage caused, as a consequence of the doing of anything to which this development consent relates, to trees identified s Bottle Brush street tree on the nature strip directly outside the property. This bond may be forfeited in the event of damages to any of these trees as a result of the development works as determined by Council’s Tree Management Officer, at a minimum the cost of replacing the tree including labour will be deducted from the bond. The applicant shall contact Council to have the street tree inspected following issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

General Engineering Conditions

 

34.       (A1) Design and Construction Standards:  All engineering plans and work shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s standards and relevant development control plans except as amended by other conditions.

 

            Reason: To ensure the development is in accordance with the determination.

 

35.       (A2) Materials on Roads and Footpaths: Where the applicant requires the use of Council land for placement of building waste, skips or storing materials a “Building waste containers or materials in a public place” application form is to be lodged. Council land is not to be occupied or used for storage until such application is approved. 

 

            Reason: Public Safety

 

36.       (A3) Works on Council Property: Separate application shall be made to Council's Urban Services Division for approval to complete, any associated works on Council property.  This shall include hoarding applications, vehicular crossings, footpaths, drainage works, kerb and guttering, brick paving, restorations and any miscellaneous works. Applications shall be submitted prior to the start of any works on Council property.

 

            Reason: To ensure the public domain infrastructure is reinstated.  

 

37.       (A4) Permit to Stand Plant: Where the applicant requires the use of construction plant on the public road reservation, an “Application for Standing Plant Permit” shall be made to Council. Applications shall be submitted and approved prior to the start of any related works. Note: allow 2 working days for approval.

 

            Reason: Public Safety

 

38.       (A5) Restoration: Public areas must be maintained in a safe condition at all times. Restoration of disturbed Council land is the responsibility of the applicant. All costs associated with restoration of public land will be borne by the applicant.

 

            Reason: To ensure the public domain is safe and infrastructure is reinstated.        

 

39.       (A6) Public Utility Relocation: If any public services are to be adjusted, as a result of the development, the applicant is to arrange with the relevant public utility authority the alteration or removal of those affected services. All costs associated with the relocation or removal of services shall be borne by the applicant.

 

            Reason: To ensure the public domain infrastructure is reinstated.  

 

40.       (A7) Pedestrian Access Maintained: Pedestrian access, including disabled and pram access, is to be maintained throughout the course of the construction as per AS-1742.3, ’Part 3 - Traffic control devices for works on roads’.

 

            Reason: Public Safety

 

41.       (A8) Council Drainage Infrastructure: The proposed construction shall not encroach onto any existing Council stormwater line or drainage easement. If a Council stormwater line is located on the property during construction, Council is to be immediately notified. Where necessary the stormwater line is to be relocated to be clear of the proposed building works. All costs associated with the relocation of the stormwater line are to be borne by the applicant.

 

            Reason: To ensure the public domain infrastructure is protected.

 

42.       (V8) Car Parking: All parking and associated facilities are to be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2890 Series.

 

            Reason: Statuary requirement

 

Engineering conditions to be complied with prior to Construction Certificate

 

43.       (S2) Stormwater Requirement: The stormwater runoff from the new and altered impervious areas within the development shall be connected to the existing drainage system in accordance with the requirements of Lane Cove Council’s DCP-Stormwater Management.

 

The existing stormwater system is to be certified that it is in good working order and meets the requirements set out in Part O, Council’s DCP-Stormwater Management. The certification is to be carried out by a fully licensed and insured plumber or a suitably qualified engineer prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Where an existing element does not comply with current standards the subject element is to be replaced.

 

Where the existing system does not comply with Part O, Councils DCP-Stormwater Management a drainage design is required. The stormwater drainage plan is to be prepared and certified by a suitably qualified engineer and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The design is to be certified that it fully complies with, AS-3500 and Part O, Council's DCP-Stormwater Management.

 

            Reason: To ensure compliance with Council’s requirements          

 

44.       (B1) Council infrastructure damage bond: The applicant shall lodge with Council a $3000 bond or bank guarantee. The bond is to cover the repair of damage to Council's roads, footpaths, kerb and gutter, drainage or other assets as a result of the development. The bond will be released upon issuing of the Occupation Certificate. If Council determines that damage has occurred as a result of the development, the applicant will be required to repair the damage. Repairs are to be carried out within 14 days from the notice. All repairs are to be carried in accordance with Council’s requirements. The full bond will be retained if Council’s requirements are not satisfied. Lodgement of this bond is required prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

            Reason: To maintain Council’s infrastructure.

 

Engineering condition to be complied with prior to commencement of construction

 

45.       (C2) Erosion and Sediment Control: The applicant shall install appropriate sediment control devices prior to the start of any works on the site. The devices shall be maintained during the construction period and replaced when necessary.

 

            Reason: To protect the environment

 

Engineering condition to be complied with prior to Occupation Certificate

 

46.       (M2) Certificate of Satisfactory Completion:  Certificates from a registered and licensed Plumber or a suitably qualified Engineer must be obtained for the following matters. The plumber is to provide a copy of their registration papers with the certificate. The relevant Certificates are to be submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to issue of any Occupation Certificate.

·                      Confirming that the site drainage system has been constructed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and Council’s DCP-Stormwater Management. 

 

            Reason:  To ensure compliance with industry standards and Council’s requirements

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Site Location Plan and Elevations

4 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Original report on 6 February 2018

17 Pages

 

AT‑4View

Supplementary Report dated 7 February 2018

5 Pages

 

 

 


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel   1 May 2018

14 Gay Street Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          14 Gay Street Lane Cove    

Record No:    DA17/168-01 - 1576/18

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Natalie Piggott 

 

 

 

Property:

14 Gay Street Lane Cove

DA No:

DA17/168

Date Lodged:

 27 October 2017

Cost of Work:

$2,700,000.00

Owner:

Estate of Margaret Grest

Applicant:        

Greenwall Property Pty Ltd

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Demolish and construct 7 multi-dwelling development

Zone

R2 Low Density Residential

Is the proposal permissible within the zone

Yes

Is the property a heritage item

No

Is the property within a conservation area

No

Is the property adjacent to bushland

Yes

BCA Classification

Class 1a and 10b

Stop the Clock used

No

Notification

2, 4 and 6 Kariola Street;

6 and 12 Gay Street;

28, 29, 30 and 32 Roslyn Street;

14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30 and 32 Karilla Avenue.

 

Reason for Referral

 

Development Application DA17/168 is referred to Lane Cove Planning Panel for consideration and determination as the proposed development seeks a departure of over 10% to the height of building development standard, has over 10 unique submissions and is contentious in the community.  

 

Executive Summary

 

Development application DA17/168 involves the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a multi dwelling development comprising of 7 dwellings and removal of 86 trees.

 

In accordance with Council’s notification policy the application was notified to surrounding properties and 94 submissions were received.  The submissions raised the average of concerns, which have been categorised below:

·    Significant environmental impacts due to the amount of trees and vegetation being removed;

·    Excessive building height;

·    Loss of privacy and amenity;

·    Impacts from noise;

·    Increased traffic and parking impacts;

·    Safety for pedestrians; and

·    Shared driveway safety impacts.

 

The site is zoned R2 Low Residential for which multi-dwelling housing is permissible, however the proposal fails to meet the objectives of the zone.

 

The proposed development does not meet the building height standard of the LEP.  A Clause 4.6 Variation was submitted with the application which is not considered to be well founded.

The site contains an endangered ecological community and the proposed multi-dwelling development would have a detrimental impact due to the significant amount of tree removal proposed. 

 

The proposed design and environmental impact does not meet the provisions of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 in the areas of Part C – Residential Development, Part H – Bushland Protection, Part J – Landscaping, Part O – Stormwater, Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation and Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking.

 

Fundamental objections were raised from Council’s Development Engineer, Traffic Engineer, Tree Assessment Officer, Bushland Officer, Ecologist and Landscape Assessment Officer.  

 

The applicant was advised of the above issues and concerns with the application.  These issues and concerns included insufficient information provided by applicant’s ecological assessment report regarding the site containing endangered ecological communities, insufficient assessment of the impact the proposed development would have to the bushland on and adjoining the site, insufficient assessment of the Environmental Protection Land mapped at the rear of the site, impacts to bushland on the site due to the requirement by Rural Fire Services to maintain the entire site as an Inner Protection Zone, insufficient information of potential impacts to adjoining Stringybark Creek and walking track and non-compliances to Council’s standards and controls set out in Lane Cove LEP 2009 and Lane Cove DCP 2010.

 

As a result of the above issues being identified, a meeting was held with the applicant where the fundamental issue of whether the site contained endangered ecological communities was discussed.  The Ecological Assessment Report by First Field Environmental dated 25 October 2017 could not discern whether endangered ecological communities were present on the site. It was determined at this meeting that Council would carry out an independent ecological assessment to determine whether the site contained endangered ecological communities.

 

Southeast Engineering and Environmental carried out an independent assessment of the site and the Threatened Endangered Community Determination was received by Council which clearly identified that the site contained Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Critically Endangered Ecological Community under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (State) and Blue Gum High Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion Critically Endangered Ecological Community under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth).

 

The applicant submitted amended plans and additional information to address the issues and concerns identified by Council, however, these concerns were not adequately addressed as the amended Ecological Assessment Report did not adequately assess the vegetation onsite as part of an endangered ecological community, did clarify or determine if the site contained endangered ecological communities  and the amended plans did not address the non-compliances identified under Lane Cove LEP 2009 and Lane Cove DCP 2010.

 

Given the minor amendments and no significant design changes, the application was not re-notified to surrounding properties.  

 

The application is recommended for refusal due to development non-compliance concerns and the unacceptable impacts to the endangered ecological community on site and the detrimental impacts the proposal would have to the bushland onsite.

 

Site

 

Property

Lot No. A  DP No. 360196

Area

2,801m²

Site location

The site is located on the corner of Gay Street and Kariola Street.

Existing improvements

Single storey two bedroom dwelling with vehicular access.

Shape

Irregular triangular shape sloping from front to rear of the site

Dimensions

The site has an irregular shaped boundary with the dimensions of:

Side Boundary: 67.77m

Side Boundary: 8.99m + 73.29m

Rear Boundary: 14.04m + 44.18m + 33.53m                        

Adjoining properties

The property surrounding the site is low density residential dwellings with a child care centre located opposite the site at 6 Gay Street (31 Roslyn Street) and the Stringybark Creek adjoining the site to the rear.

 

Neighbour Notification Plan and Site Location Plans attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

 

Figure 1: Aerial image of subject site highlighted in red (Extracted from Council mapping system)

Previous Applications

 

Pre-lodgement Meeting dated 21 June 2017 and 27 July 2017

 

A pre-lodgement meeting was held on 21 June 2017 with Council’s Environmental Services Division – Development Assessment, and subsequent follow up meeting with Council’s Open Space and Urban Design Division, where the applicant presented a multi-dwelling concept scheme to Council officers. 

 

The concept scheme was for a multi-dwelling development comprising eight (8) dwellings with rooftop car park.  The applicant provided concept diagrams (see Figures 2 and 3) which showed basic 3D conceptual diagrams of the proposal.  No survey details or architectural diagrams or sketches were provided by the applicant.

 

Figure 2: Concept plan of site

 

Figure 3: Additional Concept plans

 

The concept diagrams were presented to Council officers with the intent of the development being nestled within the trees onsite blurring the line between the built and natural forms.  However no survey details were provided and the concept diagrams did not include the topography, dimensions and existing conditions on site.  The level of tree removal was also not indicated at the pre-lodgement meetings.

 

Meeting minutes of the 21 June 2017 were sent to the applicant detailing the issues the applicant would need to address within any development application.  These issues are summarised as follows:-

 

1.       Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

·   Clause 4.3 - Maximum permitted building height: 5m;

·   Clause 4.4 - Maximum permitted FSR of the site: 0.4:1; 

·   Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to development standards; 

·   Clause 5.9 – Preservation of trees or vegetation; and

·   Clause 6.3 – Riparian land.

 

2.      Lane Cove Development Control Plan

·   Part B – Section B8 – Safety & security

·   Part C.2 – Attached dwellings and multi-dwelling housing

·   Part F – Access and Mobility. 

·   Part J – Landscaping. 

·   Part O – Stormwater management. 

·   Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.       Other matters

·   The site is adjacent to bushland – Sufficient buffer zone would be required between the building zone and the bushland; and 

·   The site is located within bushfire prone land - A bushfire assessment report prepared by a qualified bushfire consultant would be required for the DA submission.  The APZ must be taken into consideration during the design process.

 

Additional meeting minutes were provided to the applicant by the Manger Open Space from the meeting held on 27 July 2017. This was a follow up meeting from the pre-lodgement on 21 June 2017 to further discuss the landscape issues for the site.  These meeting minutes are summarised as follows:-

 

1.       DCP, LEP, other planning instruments compliance matrix;

2.       Proposed development vs. Existing conditions comparison chart;

3.       Limit of excavation – raising the FFL by 1 metre to minimise excavation;

4.       Comparison of excavation at two levels – amount of material, likelihood of reuse;

5.       Under croft area treatment – naturalistic feel using recycled material from excavation;

6.       Continuation of bushland feel – mimicking naturally occurring caves;

7.       Screening viewing glass from the walking track with strategic planting;

8.       Glass viewing windows – treatment, specification, bird strike consideration;

9.       Reserve continuity – bridging the gap created by property boundaries;

10.     E2 – Environmental Conservation zone – protection, enhancement, weed eradication;

11.     Endangered Ecological Communities– identification, preservation, restoration, regeneration;

12.     Walking track upgrade – use of timber in public domain infrastructure ;

13.     Other public domain enhancement;

14.     Access to walking track through subject site;

15.     12 Gay Street may be purchased and extend the proposed development;

16.     Signature project – Grand Designs Australia – Better Homes and Gardens Architecture segment;

17.     Habitat creation;

18.     Use of endemic plantings throughout;

19.     Zone objectives of E2 Zone;

20.     Endangered Ecological Communities – Blue Gum High Forrest and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forrest;

21.     Section drawing showing screen planting to dwellings from the walking track;

22.     Photo board showing natural systems of caves and plants growing in shallow soils on sandstone;

23.     Perspective drawing showing under croft area (3m height) as naturalistic extension of bushland; and

24.     Compliance matrix.

 

 

Proposal

 

The application seeks to demolish the existing dwelling and construct seven (7) multi-dwellings comprising of the following:-

 

·   Demolition of existing structures;

·   Removal of 86 trees with potential for a total of 134 trees to be removed;

·   Construction of 7 Villas comprising of:-

·   Villas 1 -6;

o Ground floor:  entry with lift and stairwell assess, 2 tandem parking spaces and roof garden/paved areas; and

o Lower ground floor: master bedroom with storage and en-suite, 3 bedrooms, open plan kitchen/living room and balcony;

·   Villa 7

o Master bedroom with en-suite, 3 bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen, open plan living room and balcony;

·   Internal circular driveway;

·   14 parking spaces (2 x tandem spaces per villa) at ground level;

·   Stormwater management works; and

·   New pedestrian path within Council stormwater easement.

 

Amended Plans dated 14 March 2018

 

The application was amended and the amended plans and documentation propose the following:-

 

·   Tree removal amended to 66 trees to be removed;

·   Removal of pedestrian path within Council stormwater easement;

·   Amend internal layout of Villas 1 -6:-

Lower ground floor: convert 1 bedroom into an office studio and reduce living room and balcony layouts to provide curved edging;

·   New pedestrian path along side boundary to proposed rear communal open space;

·   Amended Landscape plans with additional planting details;

·   Amended Ecological Assessment Report assessing potential endangered ecological community;

·   Amended Bushfire Assessment Report assessing the Inner Protection Zone;

·   Amended Traffic Impact Assessment Report with swept paths; and

·   Amended stormwater plans showing dispersal trench, OSD tanks and stormwater lines with pits.

 

The amended Statement of Environmental Effects, on pages 6 and 7, provides the following description of the proposed works:

 

“The unique layout of these dwellings responds to the topography and the ‘fan’ shape of the site. The circular internal driveway will be effective in distributing the cars within the development in an efficient way whilst also reducing the impact of car servicing areas. This arrangement also works with the site gradients to minimise the need to steep transitions and excavation. This design will benefit the natural environment of this site and protect the watercourse.

 

The houses are well separated so as to be private and separate from each other. Setback areas between the dwellings provide spatial separation to ensure privacy and allow space for parking areas and landscaping between dwellings. The proposed setbacks also allow for a reasonable dwelling yield to support the viability of the development.

 

Materials and finishes are proposed to be a mixture of metal, wood and concrete and have been selected to compliment the natural environment. A mixture of grey/metal operable shade screens are proposed and timber lattice operable screens to distinguish/individualise the dwellings and provide variety. The construction is a mixture of concrete walls and ‘medium grey metal’ panelling. These colours are considered to be modern, environmentally appropriate and durable. The colours are recessive and not considered to create visual intrusion. The roof profiles are low and incorporate landscaping to be in keeping

with the environs.”

 

Figures 4 and 5 depict the vision of the proposed development:-

 

Figure 4: Concept montage of development viewed from the rear

 

Figure 5: Concept site plan montage

 

It should also be noted that the amended Statement of Environmental Effects provides the following comment within the Executive Summary on page 5:

 

“While the proposed development will result in some environmental impact, on balance the development will result in impacts commensurate with any residential development on the site, however the proposed design will have significant beneficial environmental outcomes that may not be achieved by any other development.”

 

The application seeks a development that would not have any environmental impacts to the site and has provided documents and reports to support the application.  However it will be demonstrated throughout this report that, subsequent to the proposal and supporting documentation by the applicant, the proposed development would have an unacceptable environmental impact to the site for the following reasons:-

 

·    environmental impacts due to the significant tree and vegetation removal proposed including impacts to the endangered ecological community identified on the site proposed for removal;

·    impacts to the significant bushland on and adjoining the site from the loss of trees and vegetation;

·    Impacts to the bushland and the endangered ecological community resident onsite from the required management of the entire site as an Asset Protection Zone by Rural Fire Services; and

·    impacts on the reserve, walking track and riparian land at the rear of the site from the removal of trees and vegetation.

 

Application History

 

Development application DA17/168 was lodged with Council on 27 October 2017.  In accordance with Council’s notification policy the application was notified to surrounding properties from 1 November 2017 to 15 November 2017. 

 

Referrals were sent to Council referral officers on 31 October 2017 for assessment.  Referral comments were received and a preliminary assessment letter was sent on 18 January 2018 identifying issues with the application.

 

The application history is provided to the Panel separately.

 

Statutory Provisions

 

Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (State) and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth)

 

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) states that:

 

“Under the EPBC Act, environment assessments are undertaken to enable environment and heritage protection and biodiversity conservation.

 

Activities in Commonwealth areas that may result in killing, injuring, taking, trading, keeping or moving a member of a listed threatened species or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species or a member of a listed marine species are illegal without a permit.

 

A person must not take an action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on Blue Gum High Forest without approval from the Australian Government Minister for the Environment and Energy (the Minister).

 

A significant impact is an impact which is important, notable, or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity. Whether or not an action is likely to have a significant impact depends upon the sensitivity, value, and quality of the environment which is impacted, and upon the intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic extent of the impacts. You should consider all of these factors when determining whether an action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment.”

 

The Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act), 2016 Part 7 Division 1 Section 7.2 and 7.3 states:

 

7.2   Development or activity “likely to significantly affect threatened species

(1)    For the purposes of this Part, development or an activity is likely to significantly affect threatened species if:

(a)  it is likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats, according to the test in section 7.3, or

(b)  the development exceeds the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold if the biodiversity offsets scheme applies to the impacts of the development on biodiversity values, or

(c)  it is carried out in a declared area of outstanding biodiversity value.

(2)  To avoid doubt, subsection (1) (b) does not apply to development that is an activity subject to environmental impact assessment under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

7.3   Test for determining whether proposed development or activity likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats

(1)  The following is to be taken into account for the purposes of determining whether a proposed development or activity is likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats:

(a)  in the case of a threatened species, whether the proposed development or activity is likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

(b)  in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the proposed development or activity:

(i)  is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

(c)  in relation to the habitat of a threatened species or ecological community:

(i)  the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the proposed development or activity, and

(ii)  whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed development or activity, and

(iii)  the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species or ecological community in the locality,

(d)  whether the proposed development or activity is likely to have an adverse effect on any declared area of outstanding biodiversity value (either directly or indirectly),

(e)  whether the proposed development or activity is or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to increase the impact of a key threatening process.

 

Threatened species are listed under Schedule 2 of the BC Act for which Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest are both listed.   Where endangered ecological communities are identified in accordance with the definitions under the BC Act, an assessment under Part 7 is required to determine whether the proposed development is likely to significantly affect threatened species.

 

The Ecological Assessment Report by First Field Environmental dated 25 October 2017 did not carry out an adequate impact assessment in accordance with Part 7 of the BC Act as it could not discern whether endangered ecological communities were present on the site.   Council therefore requested the applicant to carry out a further investigation on the site. 

 

As requested by Council an amended Ecological Assessment Report by First Field Environmental dated 14 February 2018 was submitted and is provided as attachment (AT3).  This report, despite having made reference to the site as containing species consistent with the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 definition of Blue Gum High Forest at page 23 ‘the presence of some indicative species on the site is consistent with the State definition of the Blue Gum High Forest Endangered Ecological Community’ and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest at page 24 the presence of some indicative species on the site is consistent with the State definition of the Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest Endangered Ecological Community, did not make a definitive determination that the site contained endangered ecological communities and concludes at page 29 that:-

 

“The proposed development is not likely to have a significant impact on a Matter of National Environmental Significance listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, nor is it likely to have a significant impact on threatened species, populations or endangered communities (and their habitats) listed under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. No Species Impact Statements are required and referral to the Minister is not necessary.

 

Trees to be removed within the building footprint for the purpose of the proposed development will be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 either within the property or the same number of trees will be provided to Council or local community groups. The proponent will be responsible for sourcing and planting species appropriate to the receiving location.

 

The sparsely vegetated understorey is highly disturbed and is currently dominated by juvenile Pittosporum undulatum and Ochna serrulata. Management of the understorey for bushfire hazard reduction, landscaping and management purposes may be effective in controlling noxious weeds.”

 

Given the proposed development would see the removal of the majority of the trees onsite and the ambiguous assessment by the applicant’s ecological assessment,  Council sought independent detailed advice on the status of the endemic vegetation of the site. 

 

Accordingly Mr Mark Harris of Southeast Engineering and Environmental was engaged by Council to carry out an assessment of the site to determine whether endangered ecological communities were present on the site and Ms Susan Butler, Environmental Scientist was engaged to carry out an assessment of the potential impact the proposed development would have to the site. 

 

Mr Mark Harris carried out an assessment of the site and the Threatened Endangered Community Determination dated 16 March 2018, and provided as attachment (AT4), was received by Council which, contrary to the findings of the applicant’s ecological assessment, concluded on page 23:

 

“It is concluded that all native vegetation within the subject land comprises:

 

Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Critically Endangered Ecological Community (BC Act);

Blue Gum High Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion Critically Endangered Ecological Community (EPBC Act).”

 

Both Council’s and the applicant’s ecological assessment reports were provided to Ms Susan Butler for review and the report Assessment of the Impact of the proposed development on Bushland dated 8 April 2018 was submitted, and provided as attachment (AT5), and has identified the potential impacts the proposed development would have to the site and what significance this has in terms of the BC Act and EPBC Act.  The report states on page 8 that:-

 

Section 7.3 of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 sets out the threshold test for the assessment of significance. The assessment of significance undertaken by the applicant is very superficial. A much more detailed consideration of all the factors associated with the impact of the proposed development on the Blue Gum High Forest is essential, given its status as a Critically Endangered Ecological Community, and its presence on the site and in the adjacent Stringybark Reserve. The nature and magnitude of the impacts of the proposed development on the long term viability of this Endangered Ecological Community need further consideration and this is more appropriately carried out when preparing a species impact statement.  

There is a higher threshold test under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act regarding actions that are likely to have a significant impact on matters of environmental significance and therefore require approval from the Australian Government Minister for the Environment. The threshold test includes requirements for characteristic native plant species in all structural layers and minimum requirements of canopy cover and size. The Threatened Ecological Assessment prepared by South East Engineering + Environmental prepared in March 2018 has provided more detailed information than that in the Amended Ecological Assessment Report prepared by First Field Environmental. The applicant should reassess the threshold test under this Act.

 

Comment: It is therefore considered that the proposed development would have a significant impact on the Ecologically Endangered Community Blue Gum High Forest under the EPBC Act and would be contravening the BC Act by damaging habitat of the identified Ecologically Endangered Community Blue Gum High Forest.

 

Rural Fires Act 1997 – Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006

 

A Bushfire Hazard Assessment Report by Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited dated 13 October 2017 was submitted with the application.  This report recommended on page 17:

 

2.       That all grounds within the subject property not built upon be maintained as an

Asset Protection Zone in accordance with Appendix 2 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection and the NSW Rural Fire Service publication ‘Standards for Asset Protection Zones’.

 

However a referral was sent to the Rural Fire Services where conditions of consent were received. The conditions from the Rural Fires Services required the entire site to be managed as an Inner Protection Zone (IPZ), as stated on page 1:

 

 

“Asset Protection Zones

 

The intent of measures is to minimise the risk of bush fire attack and provide protection for emergency services personnel, residents and others assisting fire fighting activities. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

1.       At the commencement of building works, and in perpetuity, the entire property shall be managed as an Inner Protection Area (IPA) as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones'.”

 

The above condition therefore requires the entire property to be managed as an inner protection zone which over rides the recommendation by the applicant’s bushfire consultant which only recommended the grounds not built upon to be managed as the inner protection zone.

 

Accordingly the applicant submitted a supplementary Bushfire Assessment by The Fire Consultants dated 18 February 2018 which stated, under the Executive Summary on page 2, that:

 

The conditions imposed by the NSW Rural Fire Service include compliance with Appendix 5 and Appendix 2 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 (PBP). Appendix 5 requires that the canopy must not be continuous and Appendix 2 of PBP requires that any Inner Protection Area (IPA) have 2-5m gaps in the canopy and that the canopy should be less than 15% coverage and the Outer Protection area less than 30%.

 

Council’s Bushland Consultant Ms Susan Butler has carried out an assessment of the impacts the IPZ would have to the bushland on the site (AT5). 

 

In summary the requirements under the asset protection zone condition from Rural Fires Services would require further significant pruning and tree removal in order for the site to comply with the IPZ.  Whilst the applicant’s supplementary bushfire report has made recommendations in terms of the amount of pruning required, it does not override the condition from Rural Fire Services.

 

Both the Landscape Plan and Ecological Assessment Report provide planting schedules that are in direct conflict with the IPZ requirements.  The site requires a tree replanting ratio of 1:1 and given the proposed development has a 10 metre setback which forms the 10 metre buffer zone, there is not opportunity for replacement planting given the IPZ requirements and would likely result in further trees to be removed due to their proximity to building structures.

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

Section 4.15 Matters for Consideration

 

(a)  The provisions of:-

 

(i)         Any environmental planning instrument:

 

State and Sydney Regional Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

 

A valid BASIX certificate has been submitted. The certificate demonstrates compliance with the provisions of the SEPP and is consistent with the commitments identified in the application documentation.  A standard condition would be included in any Consent requiring compliance with this BASIX certificate.  Given the application is not supported the normal standard condition has not been provided.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

 

The provisions of SEPP 55 require Council to consider the potential for a site to be contaminated. A Detailed Site Investigation completed by Benviron Group Ref:E1516 dated October 2017 states that the site requires remediation in order to render the site suitable for the proposed development.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer required a Remediation Action Plan to be submitted for Council’s review which has not been submitted.  The provisions of SEPP 55 may not need to be imposed if the Panel accepts the recommendation of refusal.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

 

SEPP 19 applies to all land within the state and applies where remnant bushland exists on both public and private land.   The aims and objectives of SEPP19 are as follows:-

2   Aims, objectives etc

(1)     The general aim of this Policy is to protect and preserve bushland within the urban areas referred to in Schedule 1 because of:-

 

(a)     its value to the community as part of the natural heritage;

(b)     its aesthetic value; and

(c)     its value as a recreational, educational and scientific resource.

 

(2)     The specific aims of this policy are:-

 

(a)     to protect the remnants of plant communities which were once characteristic of land now within an urban area;

(b)     to retain bushland in parcels of a size and configuration which will enable the existing plant and animal communities to survive in the long term;

(c)     to protect rare and endangered flora and fauna species;

(d)     to protect habitats for native flora and fauna;

(e)     to protect wildlife corridors and vegetation links with other nearby bushland,

(f)      to protect bushland as a natural stabiliser of the soil surface;

(g)     to protect bushland for its scenic values, and to retain the unique visual identity of the landscape;

(h)     to protect significant geological features;

(i)      to protect existing landforms, such as natural drainage lines, watercourses and foreshores;

(j)      ........;

(k)     to protect the recreational potential of bushland;

(l)      to protect the educational potential of bushland;

(m)    to maintain bushland in locations which are readily accessible to the community; and

(n)     to promote the management of bushland in a manner which protects and enhances the quality of the bushland and facilitates public enjoyment of the bushland compatible with its conservation.

 

The proposal has been considered against the provisions of SEPP 19 and the aims and objectives contained within the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to preserve, and where possible improve, areas of remnant bushland and endangered species and communities.

 

The proposal has been considered in the context of its existing surroundings and the adjoining watercourse and bush walking track at the rear.

 

Council’s Bushland Officer, Tree Officer and Landscape Architect have advised that the proposed works would result in significant impacts to the existing trees and vegetation communities on site due to the significant loss of tree species, including species identified as critically endangered ecological communities, specifically those trees/communities identified as being included as part of the Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest community and Sydney Bluegum High Forest.

 

The site adjoins a walking track and watercourse that is frequented by local residents and the local bushcare volunteers that regularly maintain and utilize this area.  The proposed development and loss of trees would have a detrimental environmental impact to the existing bushland on and adjoining the site.  

 

The proposal therefore does not satisfy the aims and objectives of SEPP19 as the removal of trees and clearing of native bushland would:-

·        not protect or preserve the remnants of plant communities required by objective (2)(a);

·        not allow for existing plant and animal communities to survive in the long term required by objective (2)(b);

·        decimate the endangered ecological communities on site required by objective (2)(c);

·        result in the loss of existing and potential habitats for native flora and fauna required by objective (2)(d);

·        diminish the existing wildlife corridor and vegetation links to nearby bushland required by objective (2)(e);

·        impact the stability of the soil surface of the site causing potential soil erosion required by objective (2)(f);

·        remove a significant scenic bushland vista from the locality that can been seen from surrounding streets required by objective (2)(g);

·        remove the unique landscaped identity of the site that is incorporated into the rear bushland walking track required by objective (2)(i), (k) and (n); and

·        have a significant impact on the natural rock formations of the site and existing adjoining watercourse required by objective (2)(h), .

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Under Lane Cove LEP 2009, the property is zoned R2 Low Density Residential, and the proposed development is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The following is a summary of the clauses under LCLEP 2009 applicable to the development.

 

Zoning: R2 Low Density        Site Area: 2,801m²

 

LEP

Proposed

Complies

4.3 Height of Buildings

2(A) Multi dwelling housing on land in Zone R2 Low Density Residential is 5 metres

6.687m to 8.238m

11.16m top of shade structure

No

No

4.4 Floor Space Ratio

(a)  to ensure that the bulk and scale of development is compatible with the character of the locality

4.4 2(A) (a)  the maximum floor space ratio for multi dwelling housing on land in Area 1 on the Floor Space Ratio Map is 0.4:1

0.39:1 or 1,103.56m²

Yes

Clause 2.2 - Zoning

 

The consent authority must have regard to the objectives for development in a zone when determining a development application in respect of land within the zone.  The objectives for the R2 zone are as follows:-

 

·        To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment;

·        To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents;

·        To retain, and where appropriate improve, the existing residential amenity of a detached single family dwelling area; and

·        To encourage new dwelling houses or extensions of existing dwelling houses that are not highly visible when viewed from the Lane Cove River or Parramatta River.

·        To ensure that landscaping is maintained and enhanced as a major element in the residential environment.

 

The proposed development fails to satisfy the first objective as the constraints of the site require the development to breach the building height of 5m which has a bulk and scale impact that is inconsistent with the low density residential environment. 

 

The proposed development is unlikely to satisfy the last objective as there is significant tree removal proposed which would not only have a detrimental environmental impact to the site and surrounding locality but would not maintain or enhance the existing landscaping element of the residential environment. 

 

It is therefore considered that the proposed development does not meet with the zone objectives.

 

Clause 4.3 2(A) Height of Buildings

 

In accordance with Clause 4.3 2(A) of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LCLEP 2009), the site is required to have a maximum building height for multi-dwelling development within an R2 zoning of 5 metres.  The proposed development has a proposed building height of between 6.687 metres and 8.238 metres at its worst point, however the height from the shade structure would be 11.16 metres at its worst point.

 

The applicant has submitted a request to vary the LEP maximum building height requirement. Consideration of this request is provided under clause 4.6 (Exceptions to Development Standards) below.

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

 

Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 allows exceptions to development standards.  Consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. 

 

The consent authority must be satisfied that the applicant’s written request has satisfied the above criteria and that the proposed development would be in the public interest as it is consistent with the zone objectives as well as the objectives of the particular development standard. 

 

In addition, consent cannot be granted unless the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained which, under Circular PS 08-003 issued 9 May 2008 informed Council that it may assume concurrence should an exception to a development standard be supported. 

 

These matters are discussed below:-

 

1.       Written request provided by the applicant.

 

The applicant provided a written request seeking to justify the variation to the development standard with the lodged application.  A copy is provided to the Panel.

 

2.       Whether compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

The Clause 4.6 variation has argued that it is unreasonable or unnecessary to require strict compliance with the development standard for the following reasons:-

 

“The strict application of the numeric limit is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in this case given: the stated architectural, environmental and planning merits, consistency with the objectives of the LLEP and the standard and the merit DCP controls and the fact that the proposal will provide quality residential space without adversely affecting the environment.

 

The design is appropriate for the R2 zone and is consistent with prevailing building forms. The design will complement the area and provide choice and modern housing.

 

Strict compliance is not necessary and would unduly restrict the responsive design and create construction difficulties. As noted, this design provides reasonable residential space and minimises the need for site alteration. Strict compliance for the sake of the 5m limit would have an adverse effect on the design quality of the overall project. As noted, the building mostly complies and has been designed to comply at the more level section of the site. The single storey, stepped scale is reflective of the intent of the standard and the form desired by the planning controls.”

 

The decision in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90, indicates that merely showing that the proposed development achieves the objectives of the development standard is insufficient to justify that a development is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the purposes of an objection under Clause 4.6.

 

The proposal being a multi-dwelling development is, in itself, compatible within the context of the area as the locality is zoned R2 for which multi-dwelling development is permissible.  However the above argument that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of Lane Cove LEP 2009 and the building height standard is not adequate justification to vary the development standard as the proposed development does not meet the objectives of the zone or the standard.  This is demonstrated further in this report.

 

Furthermore merely stating that the proposed development ‘will provide residential space without adversely affecting the environment’ is not justification for breaching the development standard,  particularly when the proposal has not demonstrated that there is no adverse environmental impact.

 

The statement that compliance with the 5 metre height limit would ‘unduly restrict the responsive design and create construction difficulties’ is also not justification to vary the development standard. Design restriction and construction difficulties are not justifications that are considered under Clause 4.6 and it is unclear as to what restrictions this height limit would have to the design and how a breach in the height limit would alleviate construction difficulties.  Any proposed development should take into consideration, at the design stage, the site’s topography, characteristics and potential constraints.  This statement indicates that the proposed development has been designed without taking any of these factors into consideration and is proposing a design that is not compatible with the site’s constraints or topography.

 

The above arguments have not satisfactorily demonstrated that the non-compliance to the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as it has not demonstrated that the development has a better outcome due to the exceedance of the development standard, namely does the non-compliance make the development better.

 

As demonstrated further in this report, the development clearly contravenes many of the controls set out in Lane Cove DCP 2010 which contradicts the argument that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as it does not provide a development that is compliant with Council’s development controls.

 

3.       Environmental grounds to justifying contravening the development standard.

 

The Clause 4.6 variation has argued that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to vary the development standards as follows:-

 

·    The underlying intent of the control is achieved despite non-compliance.

·    The building is compatible with the desired future character of the area, and manages bulk and scale in compliance with design controls.

·    Strict compliance would not allow the desired flexibility to deal with the slope and to create a level floor which sits over the land.

·    Strict compliance would unduly constrain the site responsive design. This design provides a good balance between residential and environmental needs and provides for reasonable project/economic viability. The scale is not extensive, with consideration of the overall site area.

·    The design has been carefully considered so that the building will be single storey from the street frontage, and is also single storey in form from the side and rear perspectives (with an undercroft natural area below where the land falls away).

·    The cantilevered construction at the rear accords with the suggestions made for a cave like/natural style at the rear. This construction type will prevent earthworks which would have the adverse effect of de-stabilising the land and increasing erosion. This construction type will assist in the protection of the established trees and minimise disturbance on the existing land and water based ecology.

·    The proposed design provides a high standard of amenity for the occupants of the site.

·    The development promotes site sustainability, utilising an altered area.

·    The proposal has been designed to consider the protection of adjoining properties.

·    The intent of Clause 4.6 is to allow flexibility to facilitate meritorious architectural examples which may struggle to numerically comply, so as to create high quality built outcomes. Quality outcomes are considered to be preferable to numeric compliance.

·    For the above reasons, the variation is considered to represent a better planning outcome, supported by reasonable environmental planning grounds. Therefore, the variation is well founded.

 

The above arguments do not satisfactorily demonstrate that a better outcome can be achieved as a direct result of the non-compliance to the building height development standard.

 

The decision in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 case demonstrates that the requirement in Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the LEP to justify there are sufficient environmental planning grounds for the variation, requires identification of grounds particular to the circumstances of the proposed development, and not simply grounds that apply to any similar development on the site or in the vicinity.

 

Compliance with other planning controls is not a sufficient environmental planning ground to justify contravening a development standard nor is the absence of impact as a result of the contravention as this is required in any case.

 

The Clause 4.6 has argued that the proposed development achieves the underlying intent of the controls.   However, given that the development does not comply with the controls set out in Part C – Residential Development, Part F – Access and Mobility, Part H - Bushland Protection, Part J - Landscaping, Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation and Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking of Lane Cove DCP 2010, the argument that the proposed development meets the underlying intent of the controls set out in DCP 2010 is not environmental grounds to justify the contravention as compliance with planning controls is required in any case for which this proposed development does not.   

 

The applicant has argued that strict compliance with the building height standard would restrict the flexibility to deal with the sloping nature of the site and constrain the site responsive design of the development.  The proposed development essentially proposes to clear the trees and vegetation to the majority of the site to enable a single triangular shaped concrete slab to fan out over the site for approximately 50 metres.  This is to provide the foundation for Villa 1 and the rooftop car parking.  A significant amount of fill with supporting retaining walls is required with an amount of cut proposed for a second concrete slab, that has been stepped down, to provide the floor layouts for Villas 1-6 (refer Figure 6).

 

Figure 6: Section showing concrete slabs and proposed cut and fill

 

It is unclear as to how the 5 metre height limit would restrict the ability to deal with the topography of the site.  The site has a fall of approximately 10 metres from the top of the site to the rear bottom of the site and proposing two (2) concrete slabs to provide a leveled area does not indicate that a site sensitive design has been adopted that provides stepped or terraced dwellings on the site.  

 

The argument that the ‘development promotes site sustainability’ is unsubstantiated as the proposed development has significant environmental impacts in terms of tree removal, loss of native vegetation, removal of urban bushland, riparian impacts and unacceptable encroachment into the environmental protection land located at the rear of the site.  This clearly does not promote site sustainability nor does it provide a high standard of amenity for the future residents of the development as argued by the applicant. 

 

Therefore it is not accepted that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the non-compliances with the building height standard. Insufficient and inadequate environmental planning grounds have been provided for the variation sought to the building height development standard.

 

 

4.       Consistent with the zone objectives and objectives of the development standard.

 

Zone Objectives

 

The zone objectives have already been identified in an earlier section of the report where it was identified that the proposed development did not meet two (2) of the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone under Clause 2.2. 

 

The applicant has provided responses to the zoning objectives for which the following are applicable to the above two zoning objectives:-

 

·        Zone Objective: To ensure that landscaping is maintained and enhanced as a major element in the residential environment.

 

Applicant Comment:

 

·   The built form is balanced with high quality and effective landscaping, and the proposal allows for the retention of significant trees to provide amenity for the area.

·   The proposal has been designed in close consultation with Council to protect the important and valued environmental attributes. The proposal seeks to contain the footprint of constructed works and to minimise landform modification via the sensitive, partly elevated design (at the rear).

·   The proposal is considerate of the directly adjoining neighbours in terms of layout, spatial separation and landscape placement.

·   The proposal incorporates ecologically sustainable development principles.

 

Comment: In terms of the first zoning objective, the existing landscaped setting of the site is a significant feature which dominates the landscaped setting of both the site and locality.  The justification that the proposed development provides a balanced built form with effective landscaping, retains significant trees, is considerate of landscape placement and incorporates ecologically sustainable principles has not been substantiated as the proposal would remove the majority of the significant trees and vegetation on the site and does not provide adequate landscape provisions along the side neighbouring boundaries to provide adequate amenity. 

 

The proposal also does not contain the footprint or minimise landform modification as the footprint requires the loss of vegetation over the majority of the site.

 

The proposal does not meet this objective as it is not maintaining or enhancing the landscaped setting which is a major environmental amenity element within this residential environment, particularly with Stringbark Creek running parallel with the properties adjoining the subject site and the endangered ecological community located on and adjoining the site.

 

·        Zone Objective: To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment;

 

Applicant Comment:

 

·   The density and format accords with the development standards for the zone.

·   Solar access, privacy, off-street parking, safety/surveillance, waste facilities and stormwater management are incorporated in the design for the benefit of the area.

 

 

Comment: The second zone objective relates to the fact that the site is located within R2 Low Density zoning for which multi-dwelling development is permissible at a maximum 5 metre height limit. This height limit ensures that whilst the housing density of a site is increased, this increase is maintained at a low density to ensure the additional housing density does not impact upon the R2 low density zoning.

 

The breach of the height limit from 6.687 metres up to 11.16 metres does not maintain the low density scale envisioned by the zoning objective, particularly when six (6) of the seven (7) Villas are non-compliant with the building height development standard. The justification that the density and format accords with the development standard is therefore not substantiated as the density, in terms of height, is not in accordance with the development standard.

 

The proposal has also not been able to adequately demonstrate that solar access, off-street parking, waste facilities safety/surveillance and privacy can be provided.

 

The proposed development is therefore not consistent with the zone objectives.

 

Clause 4.3 Height of Building Objectives

 

The objectives of the height of buildings clause in LCLEP 2009 are discussed as follows: 

 

Clause 4.3 (2A) provides the following objectives:-

 

(a)  to ensure development allows for reasonable solar access to existing buildings and public areas;

(b)  to ensure that privacy and visual impacts of development on neighbouring properties, particularly where zones meet, are reasonable;

(c)  to seek alternative design solutions in order to maximise the potential sunlight for the public domain; and

(d)  to relate development to topography

 

 

The Clause 4.6 variation argues that the development would deliver the outcomes as described by the objectives of the development standard as follows:-

 

·    The extent of the variation is minor and only involves relatively small sections of the roof, at the rear section of the site, where the site falls away. This allows a level platform and compliant height at the front.

·    The height variation is not considered to adversely impact on the natural environment or the amenities of adjoining properties.

 

Comment: The variation is not considered to be minor in nature with the worst point of the development measuring 11.16 metres in height.

 

·    The topography is steep and makes compliance more challenging. Strict compliance is more achievable on a level site. The development is considered to relate appropriately to the topography, the prevailing streetscape scale (single storey) and the general construction type of housing on sloping land (generally higher at the rear).  In this regard, both the current house and the adjoining houses are above the 5m line and it is noted that the proposed ridge height of Villa 07 is lower than the ridge height of the existing house, so in fact be less prominent (in height terms) from the street.

·    The design has been created to respond to the topography.

 

Comment: The fact that the site’s topography creates difficulty in complying with the development standard is irrelevant.  Split level and terraced designs can adequately accommodate sloping topographies.  The surrounding development would have higher height limits as these are single residential dwellings with a permissible 9.5 metre height limit and Villa 07 has a permissible height at the street frontage.  The proposal has not investigated alternative designs to address the slope of the site and this argument is not considered to be adequate justification. 

 

·    The design was discussed with Council and the variation was supported in principle, subject to consideration of the merits of the application and with a Clause 4.6 submission.

 

Comment: The pre-lodgement meeting minutes do not indicate any support to a height variation other than it must be addressed.  This is not a consideration under Clause 4.6.

 

·    Despite the numeric non-compliance, the development is considered to maintain an appropriate scale at the street and in relationship to the area, consistent with the scale and design objectives of the planning controls.

 

Comment: Given the proposed development does not comply with the controls set out in Part C – Residential Development, Part F – Access and Mobility, Part H - Bushland Protection, Part J - Landscaping, Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation and Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking of Lane Cove DCP 2010, it is unclear as to how this argument can be put forward as the proposed development is inconsistent with the design objectives of the controls.

 

·    The open undercroft area has been deliberately designed to provide a ‘naturalistic feel’ (cave like and landscaped) as noted in the re-DA meeting notes of 27 July. The scale is carefully managed at the rear where the development is articulated and separated into sections/pavilions and articulated with balconies and architectural shade screens. These break up ‘scale’ and individualise the houses. This will provide an attractive and considered built perspective from the bushwalk and other areas which may be able to see the development from the south.

·    As the proposal is not considered to create unreasonable bulk, scale, shadow, privacy or area character impacts, the proposal complies with the objectives of the height standard and the LEP.

 

Comment: The proposal at the rear would have a significant impact in terms of privacy and amenity given that the rear has proposed balconies and windows at an elevated level which would create overlooking impacts to both the walking track along Stringybark Creek and rear adjoining dwellings on the other side of the riparian corridor.

 

The proposal has not adequately demonstrated that the development does not have excessive bulk and scale, overshadowing or privacy impacts and the loss of vegetation on the site has a significant impact to the area’s treed environmental character.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the development when assessed against the Lane Cove LEP and DCP, does not meet any of the development standard objectives set out under Clause 4.3(2A) as:-

 

(a)  Insufficient information has been provided to clearly demonstrate the solar impacts the proposed development would have to surrounding development;

(b)  Privacy and visual impacts have not been adequately addressed;

(c)  Alternate design solutions have not been explored to maximize potential sunlight, particularly with the use of skylights which do not allow adequate sun penetration to the lower ground floor bedrooms; and

(d)  The proposed development has not related the design of the dwellings to the topography of the site.

 

 

5.       Concurrence of the Director General.

 

Circular PS 08-003 issued on 9 May 2008 informed Council that it may assume the Director-Generals concurrence for exceptions to development standards.

 

Given that the fundamental non compliances with the development standards and objectives of the Lane Cove LEP 2009, Council is no willing to exercise the assumed concurrence of the Director-General.

 

Conclusion

 

Whilst a written request has been made and justification has been put forward to vary the maximum building height development standard under Clause 4.3(2A) of LCLEP 2009 standard, the request has not demonstrated that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary or that there are sufficient environmental grounds to justify contravening the development standard.   The variation to the maximum building height requirement is therefore not supported.

 

Other Provisions under LCLEP 2009

 

LEP

Proposed

5.6 Architectural Roof Features

The application does not include any roof features that would be considered applicable for this clause.

5.10 Heritage Conservation

The application is not within a heritage conservation area or within the vicinity of a heritage item identified under Schedule 5 of LCLEP2009.

 

 

(ii)        Any proposed instrument (Draft LEP, Planning Proposal)

 

There are no relevant Draft Environmental Planning Instruments for the subject site.

 

(iii)       Any development control plan

 

Comprehensive Lane Cove DCP 2010

 

Part C2.0 Attached Dwellings and Multi Dwelling Housing

 

A full assessment of the proposal under Lane Cove DCP 2010 (LCDCP 2010) is illustrated in the compliance table and the non-compliances identified in the table are assessed below.

 

C2 Attached Dwellings and Multi-Dwelling Housing

2.2 Site Area and Frontage

a) Attached dwelling and multi-dwelling housing proposals require:

I. A minimum site area of 1,000m2 per development; and

II. A minimum site width at the front building line of 20m.

 

 

 

Site area 2,801m²

 

 

Site width at Dwelling 07: 17.5m

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

No

c) An average site area 250sqm per attached dwelling or multi-dwelling unit (including common areas) is required.

7 dwellings proposed: >250m² per dwelling.

Yes

2.3 Streetscape

a) New buildings are to recognise and respond to the lot pattern and rhythm of dwellings within the street.

The proposed development does not respond to the rhythm of dwellings within Gay Street.  The development is of a bulk and scale that is inappropriate for the locality.

No – refer discussion below.

b) Dwellings are not to be positioned over driveways to basement car park where this results in an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity and continuity of the streetscape.

Dwellings are not positioned over driveway, however parking is at ground level requiring a large elevated concrete slab across the entire building footprint.  Whilst this would not be visible from the street it would be visible from the rear walking track and properties located at the rear of the site.

N/A – parking is located above lower ground floor for Villas 01-06.

c) Carports or garages are not permitted within the street setback.

Not proposed.

N/A

2.4 Setbacks

2.4.1 Street setback

This is also the front setback for the dwelling addressing the street.

a) It is to be a minimum of 6.0m except in R2 zones where the setback is to be 7.5m.

Varied setback between 5m to over 9.5m due to unusual subdivision of site. 

No – refer discussion below.

c) In general, no part of a building or above ground structure may encroach into a setback zone. Exceptions are awnings, balconies, blade walls, bay windows and other articulation elements up to a maximum of 500mm.

Setback encroachment due to allotment orientation.

No – refer discussion below.

2.4.2 Front setback:

a) A minimum of 2.0m for the dwellings within the development (refer to Diagram No. 7).

3.4m to Dwelling 03

Yes

b) Basement car parks are not to extend beyond the building envelope into the front setback.

Basement car park not proposed.

N/A

2.4.3 Side setback

a) A minimum of 1.2m for a single storey dwelling.

1.2m to Villa 07

Yes

b) A minimum of 1.5m for a two storey dwelling.

1.2m to Villas 1-6 – these villas are not considered single storey as the entrance is located on the ground floor with the remainder of the dwellings located at the lower ground level.

No – refer discussion below.

2.4.4 Rear setback

This refers to setbacks from both, the site rear boundary and dwellings within a development.

Refer Part H of DCP 2010

10m

10m provided – however additional setback is required from the Environmental Protection Land located at the rear of the site.

Refer Part H

2.5 Fences

The provisions for fences in the dwelling house section shall apply

1.4.1 Front fences

Solid fences

a) permitted up to 900mm above ground level (existing) on the front boundary.

 

No front fence is proposed.

 

 

N/A

1.4.2 Side and rear fences

a) Side fences behind the building line are to be a maximum of 1.8m in height above ground level.

Side walls proposed around perimeter of ground floor slab, including the two side boundaries closest to the front of the site, with fencing proposed on top of the wall.  No details are provided on the plans in terms of top of wall RLs, fencing height and materials. It appears that the fencing is a continuation of the concrete wall which included the balustrade which has an RL of 64.05.  This would mean that the wall with fence included, at its worst point, would be over 8m. Details of the retaining walls have not been shown and it cannot be discerned if the wall, fencing and balustrade are the same structure.  

No details provided – insufficient information provided.

1.4.3 Fences on sites adjoining bushland

a) Fences on sites adjoining a bushland reserve are to be constructed of cyclone wire, steel posts or the like, so as not to impact upon the continuity of the bushland into the residential allotment.

No fencing is indicated at the rear boundary of the property.  

Yes

b) Fencing colour is to blend with the adjoining bushland. A white fence is prohibited.

White fencing not proposed.

Yes

2.6 Landscaped Area

a) Landscaping is to relate to the ground level of the dwelling by direct access from a living area.

Plans indicate green roof and habitat plantings at ground level, however the ground floor level is not connected to dwellings 01-06.  Limited information of the POS landscaped areas is shown on the amended plans and how this area is to be actively used.

No – refer discussion below.

b) A minimum of 35% of the site is to be landscaped area with a minimum width of 3.0m. For attached dwellings, this refers to each allotment individually.

No details have been provided that demonstrates compliance.  Rooftop landscaped areas equate to approx. 30m² and communal open space has been provided at the rear of the site.  These areas have no direct connection with the dwellings.

No – refer discussion below.

c) Landscaping at front boundaries shared with bicycle routes should be less than 900mm in height and should not impede pedestrian and bicycle routes or reduce visibility to these pathways.

Not applicable.

N/A

2.7 Cut and Fill

Refer to section 1.6 of this DCP Part for objectives and provisions regarding cut and fill.

1.6 Cut and Fill

a) All dwellings are to relate to the existing topography of the land at the time of the adoption of this DCP.

The development does not adequately demonstrate that the development has been designed to accommodate the topography of the site.  The plans indicate retaining walls with significant fill proposed for the side retaining walls that would be required to support the fill for the concrete slab of the ground floor.

No – refer discussion below.

b) The area of the site contained within the building footprint can be excavated or filled only where it is necessary to reasonably construct a dwelling on steeply sloping sites.

Excavation of 1m proposed within building footprint.

Yes

c) All dwellings are to adopt a split level approach to the design of the house to minimise excavation and fill and to achieve a design response that relates to the sloping topography of the site.

Development has not adequately adopted a split level design to accommodate the topography of the site.  

No – refer discussion below.

d) Development is limited to a maximum depth of excavation or fill of 1m at any point on the site unless it is demonstrated that the site’s slope is too steep to reasonably construct a 2 storey dwelling with this extent of excavation.

Excavation proposed is 1m with fill in excess of 1m

 

 

No – refer discussion below.

 

e) In such circumstances, Council may consider increasing the depth of excavation between the underside of the lowest floor to any point on the site where:

I. large exposed undercroft areas are not created

II. the excavation does not create adverse impacts on the stability or amenity of adjoining properties or the public domain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cantilevered undercroft areas created due to design of development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No – refer discussion below.

f) Excavation or fill is not to result in the loss of any significant mature trees within the side, front or rear boundary setbacks.

Significant trees proposed for removal over entire building footprint.

No – refer discussion below.

2.8 Building Design

a) Dwellings are to be oriented to face the street with additional dwellings oriented to follow the existing development pattern.

Villa 07 faces towards the street.

Yes

b) The architectural style of development must be sympathetic to the adjoining and surrounding buildings in terms of height, materials, roof pitch and overall building character.

The proposed development is not considered to be sympathetic to the adjoining and surrounding buildings or the environment.

No – refer discussion below.

c) Visual continuity of open space corridors and vegetation elements in the block is to be maintained by the position of buildings.

The open space corridor and vegetation elements have not been maintained due to the significant amount of trees proposed for removal. 

No – refer discussion below.

d) The area of the site devoted to driveways and vehicle turning areas should be minimised.

Vehicular access and turning areas are proposed on the ground floor concrete slab.

No – refer discussion below.

e) On sloping sites car parking may be located below the residential level of the dwelling.

Parking is located at ground floor level.

Yes

f) On sites with a slope in excess of 5% each dwelling is to have a separate ground floor level with the difference being equal to the average slope of the site.

The development has not demonstrated compliance with this control.

No – refer discussion below.

g) Side and rear facades are to be articulated to provide visual interest using windows, awnings, sun shading devices, upper storey setbacks or insets within the wall alignment.

A concrete wall is proposed around the perimeter of the development which has not been clearly demonstrated on the plans as to height and extent of excavation.

No – refer discussion below.

h) A mix of building materials and/or colours should be used to reduce the appearance of bulk and to integrate the buildings within the local area.

Schedule of finishes provided on plans – majority of development is concrete, wood and dark grey metal with very little detail in tones.

No – mix of materials not in keeping with locality.

i) Height

I. The maximum number of storeys for attached dwellings or townhouses in the R3 zone is 2 storey

II. The maximum number of storeys for a villa is 1 storey.

III. The minimum floor to ceiling height on ground floor is to be 2.7m and upper level(s) 2.4m.

 

N/A

 

 

 

Development proposed 2 storey villas for dwellings 01 to 06 due to entry and car park level.

 

>2.7m ceiling heights.

 

 

 

 

 

No – refer discussion below.

 

 

Yes

j) The minimum dwelling width is 5m (measured between the external walls).

5m minimum widths provided.

Yes

2.9 Amenity

2.9.1 Privacy

a) Development should be located and oriented to maximise visual and acoustic privacy between buildings.

Potential privacy impacts from ground floor parking and rear living areas and balconies.

No – refer discussion below.

b) Building elements such as balconies and decks are to be designed to minimise overlooking of living areas and private open spaces of adjoining dwellings.

Elevated living areas and balconies present potential privacy impacts to surrounding development and walking track.

No – refer discussion below.

c) The windows of dwellings are to be located so they do not provide direct and close views into the windows of other dwellings, particularly those of living areas.

No direct overlooking proposed by windows.

Yes

d) A minimum of 12m separation is required between buildings within the development site where habitable rooms face habitable rooms.

Not applicable.

N/A

e) A minimum of 9m separation is required between buildings within the development site where habitable rooms face non-habitable rooms or blank walls.

Not applicable.

N/A

f) A minimum of 3m separation is required between buildings within the development site where non-habitable rooms/blank walls face other non-habitable rooms/ blank walls.

>3m provided at ground floor.

Yes

g) Council will require a report by an acoustic consultant to be submitted with development applications for multi dwelling housing developments on sites adjacent to noise generating sources such as major roads and rail corridors (see Part B – General Controls for provisions regarding development near busy roads and rail corridors).

An acoustic report is required to be provided.

No – refer discussion below.

h) Internal habitable rooms of dwellings affected by high levels of external noise are to be designed to achieve internal noise levels of no greater than 50dBA.

Not demonstrated by application.

No – refer discussion below.

2.9.2 Solar Access

a) Dwellings within the development site and any residential development beyond the site are to receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight to habitable rooms and to at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

Development relies heavily on skylights to provide solar access – No shadow diagrams provided with application to demonstrate compliance.

The neighbouring sites, however are likely to receive the minimum 3 hours of sunlight due to the orientation of the allotment.

Insufficient information provided.

b) Where existing development currently receives less sunlight than this requirement, this should not be unreasonably reduced. Shadow diagrams are required with development applications to show solar access and the extent of overshadowing.

Not applicable.

N/A

2.9.3 Private and Communal Open Space

a) Private open space is to be:

I. Directly accessible from the living area of the dwelling.

 

II. Located so as to maximise solar access.

 

III.  A minimum of 4.0m dimension in any direction.

 

IV. A minimum unbuilt upon area of 50m² per 2 or 3 bedroom dwelling.

 

V. A minimum unbuilt upon area of 75 m² per 4 or more bedroom dwelling.

 

POS in the form of balconies is accessible from the living rooms.

 

Solar diagrams not provided to demonstrate compliance.

 

4m dimension provided

 

 

Villas 1-6 have 3 bedroom plus office studio and Villa 7 has 4 bedrooms. 

The rooftop/ground floor private open space is located on a concrete slab and provides a minimum 70m² for each Villa of private open space together with balconies off the living rooms on the lower ground floor.  There development does not provide any unbuilt upon private open space area.

 

Yes

 

 

Insufficient information provided

Yes

 

 

No – refer discussion below.

b) Private open space may be located on top of semi-basement parking. (Garage and carport roofs are to be non-trafficable).

Car parking and POS located on ground floor of development.  This does not provide adequate amenity.

No – refer discussion below.

c) Private open space is to contain paving of at least 10m2 per dwelling.

Paving provided.

Yes

d) Private open space will not be permitted in the front setback area.

Not provided.

Yes

e) Communal open space is to be provided for a development of more than 5 townhouses or villas and is to be:

 

I. Located where it is highly visible and directly accessible to the maximum number of dwellings.

 

 

 

II. Designed with an integral role in the site, with uses such as circulation, BBQ, play areas or passive amenity.

 

III. Integrated with the deep soil zone to provide a landscaped setting with opportunities for large and medium size tree planting.

 

 

IV. A minimum of 10% of the site area.

V. Exclusive of shared driveway areas.

Not clearly identified on the plans – communal open space referred to on architectural plans is not consistent with amended landscape plan. 

 

Amended plans provide an access path along the western elevation to the rear landscaped area.  No details provided as to levels or equitable access is gained from the villas.

 

No facilities provided within communal open space.

 

 

 

Amended plans provide 1,200m² of communal open space area within the deep soil zone, however inconsistencies between the architectural plans and landscape plans due to the deep soil zone being located underneath the cantilevered ground floor slab.

42% provided.

 

Driveway area excluded.

No – refer discussion below.

 

 

No – refer discussion below.

 

 

 

No – refer discussion below.

 

 

No – refer discussion below.

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

2.10 Number of Car Parking, Motorcycle and Bicycle Spaces

a) Garage and carport roofs are to be non-trafficable.

No garage/car port roofs provided.

N/A

b) Semi-basement parking may protrude up to a maximum of 1.2m above the ground level (existing) subject to achieving a high quality design solution where ventilation grilles are not located to front or rear gardens.

Ground floor parking provided in excess of 1.2m above ground.

No – refer discussion below.

c) Driveway widths are to be kept to a minimum while complying with AS 2890.1 and AS2890.2.

Refer traffic comments

See Part R

d) A Transport and Accessibility Report may be required by the Traffic Manager.

Report provided – see traffic comments below.

See Part R

 

Non-Compliances of Part C – Residential Development:

 

2.2 Site Area and Frontage

 

Section 2.2 requires a site width at the front building line of 20m.  The proposed development has an 18m width at the front building line of Dwelling/Villa 07. This is a numerical non-compliance of 2 metres which, on merit, may be supported, however as the front setback is solely dominated by hard surface with no proposed landscaping, this is not consistent with general objective 1 for attached dwellings and multi-dwelling development set out in Section 2.1 of Part C.2 which state:-

 

1        Development is compatible and complementary to the visual and environmental character of surrounding residential areas.

 

The hard surface driveway is also inconsistent with the streetscape character of the locality which is discussed further below.

 

2.3 Streetscape

 

The design and appearance of the proposed development is unsympathetic to the existing development within the locality and is inconsistent with the following objectives under Section 2.3 Streetscape:

 

5        To ensure the existing topography and landscape setting are enhanced and reinforced by new development.

9      To encourage attractive street frontages and improve pedestrian amenity.

10    To enhance and maintain vegetation corridors.

 

The proposal not only introduces a hard surface driveway which dominates the front setback of the site, it proposes significant tree and vegetation removal within the front and side setbacks which are not replenished.  The front and side setbacks are significantly devoid of any landscaping and the hard surface driveway over the entire front of the site does not provide an attractive street frontage nor does the removal of the trees and vegetation ensure the landscape setting is enhanced.

 

Furthermore the hard surface driveway does not provide any separate pedestrian access paths onto the development which does not improve pedestrian amenity.

 

The proposed development is also inconsistent with Section 2.3 Provision a) which states:

 

a) New buildings are to recognise and respond to the lot pattern and rhythm of dwellings within the street.

 

The pattern and rhythm of existing dwellings within the street are characterised by landscaped front setbacks with minimal hard surfaces.  The proposed development with the entire front setback paved for the driveway does not recognise or respond to this characteristic of the surrounding locality.

 

2.4 Setbacks

 

·        2.4.1 Street setback

 

Section 2.4.1 requires a 7.5m setback with a 20m site width at the front building line.  The existing allotment does not have a traditional straight street frontage due to the curved nature of the street alignment.  This has caused the site to have a narrow entry point of 7.95m which has been utilised for the circular driveway that provides vehicular access in and out of the site in a forward direction.  

 

As previously discussed the driveway introduces a hard surface over the entire front setback with no landscaping proposed within the front and side eastern setbacks.  This does not meet objectives 1, 3 and 4 of Section 2.4 which state:- 

 

1        Provide setbacks that complement the streetscape, allow flexibility in the siting of the buildings and control the balance of built form to landscape.

3        Provide landscape to offer a visual buffer between dwellings.

4        Achieve a high level of amenity for dwellings, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

The proposal is not complimentary with the streetscape, does not provide a visual buffer between dwellings and does not achieve a high level of amenity for the dwellings, neighbouring dwellings and public domain.

 

·        2.4.3 Side setback

 

A setback of 1.2m to Villas 1-6 has been provided, however these villas are not considered single storey as the entrance is located on the ground floor with the remainder of the dwellings located at the lower ground level.  A 1.5m setback for two storey dwellings is therefore required.

 

·        2.4.4 Rear Setback

 

A 10m setback has been provided from the rear boundary.  In accordance with Part H- Bushland Protection, a minimum 10m setback is required from the bushland to provide a bushland buffer.  This setback would therefore be required, as a minimum, to be from the Environmental Protection Land located at the rear of the site, however given that the site is heavily vegetated with bushland, this buffer zone is considered to start from below the constructed retaining at the rear of the existing dwelling.  A 10m buffer zone would therefore be required from the established bushland in accordance with comments provided by Council’s Bushland Officer.   

 

2.5 Fences - The provisions for fences in the dwelling house section shall apply

 

·        1.4.1 Front fences - 1.4.2 Side and rear fences

 

The amended landscape plan notes fencing show above concrete walls down the side elevations.  These concrete walls have balustrading at an RL of 62.05 noted along the side eastern and rear elevations.  These balustrades appear to be part of the concrete wall which, at its worst point along the side elevation, is over 8m in height. No details are provided on the plans in terms of level of cut and fill required for these concrete walls which appear to be retaining walls on the section plans. 

 

It is unclear whether the fencing is part of the concrete wall as there appears to be no differentiation between the two noted on the plans.  Given the height of the top of the balustrade, these walls would have a detrimental impact to the neighbouring properties in terms of bulk and scale impacts as no landscaping screening is proposed along the side eastern boundary and limited landscaping is provided along the side western boundary.

 

2.6 Landscaped Area

 

Section 2.6 of LCDCP2010 provides controls for landscaped area.  Specifically, LCDCP2010 stipulates the following:-

 

a)   Landscaping is to relate to the ground level of the dwelling by direct access from a living area.

b)   A minimum of 35% of the site is to be landscaped area with a minimum width of 3.0m. For attached dwellings, this refers to each allotment individually.

 

The submitted plans indicate green roof and habitat plantings at ground level, however the ground floor level is not connected to dwellings 01-06.  Limited information of the POS landscaped areas is shown on the plans with no details provided that demonstrates compliance with the above controls. 

 

The rooftop landscaped areas equate to approx. 30m² as stated within the SEE, however this is not demonstrated on the plans.

 

The rear of the site appears to be inaccessible with no external access provided to any of the dwellings.  It would appear that the only access path provided is that which is within Council’s drainage easement for which owner’s consent has not been provided.

 

Accordingly the proposed development fails to meet with the provisions set out in Section 2.6 and reference is made to Council’s Landscape Architect referral response earlier in this report for a detailed response on the landscape issues with the proposal.

 

2.7 Cut and Fill

 

Section 2.7 prescribes development controls to ensure that development is sympathetic with the natural topography of the site. Specifically, LCDCP2010 stipulates the following:-

 

a) All dwellings are to relate to the existing topography of the land at the time of the adoption of this DCP;

b) The area of the site contained within the building footprint can be excavated or filled only where it is necessary to reasonably construct a dwelling on steeply sloping sites.

c) All dwellings are to adopt a split level approach to the design of the house to minimise excavation and fill and to achieve a design response that relates to the sloping topography of the site;

d) Development is limited to a maximum depth of excavation or fill of 1m at any point on the site unless it is demonstrated that the site’s slope is too steep to reasonably construct a 2 storey dwelling with this extent of excavation;

e) In such circumstances, Council may consider increasing the depth of excavation between the underside of the lowest floor to any point on the site where;

I.        large exposed undercroft areas are not created;

II.       the excavation does not create adverse impacts on the stability or amenity of adjoining properties or the public domain; and

f) Excavation or fill is not to result in the loss of any significant mature trees within the side, front or rear boundary setbacks.

 

The proposal fails to demonstrate that the development has been designed to accommodate the topography of the site. The amended plans propose a cut of 1m with significant fill proposed. 

 

The proposed development has not adequately adopted a split level design to accommodate the topography of the site.  The proposal has adopted a two storey structure for dwellings 01 to 06 where the entrance is at ground floor level with the remainder of the dwelling located at the lower ground level.  This requires a significant concrete slab to be constructed over the entire building footprint with a lower level slab which creates a cantilevered undercroft area.

 

The propose development also results in the removal of significant trees over the entire building footprint and within the front, side and rear setbacks.

 

Accordingly the proposed development fails to meet with the provisions set out in Section 2.7.

 

2.8 Building Design

 

Section 2.8 prescribes development controls to ensure the appearance of the development is of high quality, addresses the street and provides attractive building facades that contribute to the streetscape.  These controls stipulate:-

 

a)  Dwellings are to be oriented to face the street with additional dwellings oriented to follow the existing development pattern;

b)  The architectural style of development must be sympathetic to the adjoining and surrounding buildings in terms of height, materials, roof pitch and overall building character;

c)  Visual continuity of open space corridors and vegetation elements in the block is to be maintained by the position of buildings;

d)  The area of the site devoted to driveways and vehicle turning areas should be minimised;

e)  On sloping sites car parking may be located below the residential level of the dwelling;

f)   On sites with a slope in excess of 5% each dwelling is to have a separate ground floor level with the difference being equal to the average slope of the site;

g)  Side and rear facades are to be articulated to provide visual interest using windows, awnings, sun shading devices, upper storey setbacks or insets within the wall alignment.

h)  A mix of building materials and/or colours should be used to reduce the appearance of bulk and to integrate the buildings within the local area;

i)   Height;

I. The maximum number of storeys for attached dwellings or townhouses in the R3 zone is 2 storey;

II. The maximum number of storeys for a villa is 1 storey;

III. The minimum floor to ceiling height on ground floor is to be 2.7m and upper level(s) 2.4m; and

j)   The minimum dwelling width is 5m (measured between the external walls).

 

The proposed development fails to achieve controls b), c), d), f), g), h), i),and j) as the development:-

 

·    Does not propose an architectural style that is sympathetic to surrounding development;

·    Does not provide visual continuity of open space corridors and vegetation elements due to the significant loss of trees and vegetation;

·    Does not minimise the area of driveways and turning areas;

·    Does not provide a separate ground floor level to dwellings 01 to 06 as the ground floor level is entry level only and car parking;

·    Articulation and visual interest to the side elevations has not been demonstrated;

·    A colours and finishes schedule has not been provided; and

·    The height of dwellings 01 to 06 is two storey.

 

Accordingly the proposed development fails to meet with the provisions set out in Section 2.8.

 

2.9 Amenity

 

Section 2.9 provides controls for the privacy, solar access and private open space to ensure that existing and future residents can enjoy reasonable privacy in their dwellings and private open space without being overlooked by adjoining neighbours and to provide reasonable solar access to habitable rooms and recreational areas of new and existing developments.

 

The proposed development has not adequately addressed the requirements of Section 2.9 Amenity in terms of Section 2.9.1 Privacy, 2.9.2 Solar access and 2.9.3 Private and Communal open space.  In particular insufficient information has been provided that does not demonstrate the proposed development meets with the following provisions:

 

·     Section 2.9.1 Privacy Provisions:-

a)    Development should be located and oriented to maximise visual and acoustic privacy between buildings;

b)    Building elements such as balconies and decks are to be designed to minimise overlooking of living areas and private open spaces of adjoining dwellings;

g)    Council will require a report by an acoustic consultant to be submitted with development applications for multi dwelling housing developments on sites adjacent to noise generating sources such as major roads and rail corridors (see Part B – General Controls for provisions regarding development near busy roads and rail corridors); and

h)    Internal habitable rooms of dwellings affected by high levels of external noise are to be designed to achieve internal noise levels of no greater than 50dBA.

 

·     Section 2.9.2 Solar Access Provision a) Dwellings within the development site and any residential development beyond the site are to receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight to habitable rooms and to at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

 

·     Section 2.9.3 Private and Communal Open Space Provisions:

a) Private open space is to be:-

I.     Directly accessible from the living area of the dwelling;

II.    Located so as to maximise solar access;

III.   A minimum of 4.0m dimension in any direction;

IV.   A minimum unbuilt upon area of 50 m2 per 2 or 3 bedroom dwelling;

V.    A minimum unbuilt upon area of 75 m2 per 4 or more bedroom dwelling;

b) Private open space may be located on top of semi-basement parking. (Garage and carport roofs are to be non-trafficable);

e) Communal open space is to be provided for a development of more than 5 townhouses or villas and is to be:-

I.     Located where it is highly visible and directly accessible to the maximum number of dwellings;

II.    Designed with an integral role in the site, with uses such as circulation, BBQ, play areas or passive amenity;

III.   Integrated with the deep soil zone to provide a landscaped setting with opportunities for large and medium size tree planting;

IV.   A minimum of 10% of the site area; and

V.    Exclusive of shared driveway areas.

 

Accordingly the proposed development fails to achieve compliance with the above provisions set out in Section 2.9.

 

2.10 Number of Car Parking, Motorcycle and Bicycle Spaces

 

Section 2.10 prescribes development controls to ensure sufficient parking is provided onsite with adequate driveway and manoeuvring areas and visual impacts are minimised.

 

Given the car parking provisions of the development are provided at grade on the ground floor level, it is considered that visual and acoustic impacts to the neighbouring properties would be impacted.  The parking level is 1.2m above ground and whilst this is not a basement level it would have visual and acoustic privacy impacts.

 

Reference is made to the Traffic Engineer’s referral response earlier in this report for a detailed response on the traffic issues with the proposal.

 

Part F – Access and Mobility

 

The proposed development has not provided an Access Report in accordance with Part F of Lane Cove DCP2010. 

 

Part H – Bushland Protection

 

Reference is made to the Bushland Officer’s referral response earlier in this report for a detailed response on the bushland issues with the proposal.  The following compliance table illustrates the non-compliances identified in these comments.

 

PART H BUSHLAND PROTECTION

Development Control

Proposed

Complies

H.5 Development Area

5.1 Bushland Area

a) This is the part of the site which contains bushland vegetation and other topographic and natural features.

b) It is an extension of the areas of bushland zoned or reserved for public open space purposes and should exhibit the same characteristics as that for the land zoned "E2 Environmental Conservation" under the Lane Cove LEP.

c) It may be land which is currently degraded but forms a continuous link with bushland on neighbouring properties.

d) If land within the bushland area is identified as ‘Environmental Protection’ on the Environmental Protection Map, then any development on that land must comply with Clause 6.4 of the LEP. Notwithstanding this, development adjacent to bushland must also comply with this DCP.

e) No development or alteration that leads to degradation will be permitted within the area irrespective of whether it is public or private bushland.

Site has mapped Environmental Protection Land over the rear portion of the site approx. 1,200m².  The LEP 2009 states that development consent must not be granted for development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority has considered the impact of the proposed development on the vegetation, topography and distinctive features of the land.   The impacts of the development proposal are considered to be unacceptable.    The DA proposal requests the removal of the Endangered Ecological Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Vegetation Community within the building footprint.   In addition, the canopy and understorey are proposed to be cleared to a maximum 20% cover to fulfil the requirements of an APZ in a 10 metre band at the rear of the property. 

 

The proposed development encroaches into this land and is not supported as it does not meet the objectives of Clause 6.4 of LCLEP 2009.

Tree and vegetation removal would result in the significant degradation of the bushland onsite.

 

No – Section 5.1 of Part H has not been complied with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.1 Buffer Area

5.2.1 In residential areas

 

 

a) This is that part of the site which separates bushland from the building area.

b) All work should have minimal to no adverse impact on bushland.

c) Buildings, including swimming pools and enclosed garden rooms, are not permitted within this area. This area can be used for structures and/or works such as:

I. Paved areas, decking, lawn areas and garden beds,

II. stormwater detention/absorption pits and associated landscaping,

III. temporary storage of building materials, and

IV. bushfire fuel breaks.

d) Paving and decking is not to exceed 25% of this area and should be permeable.

e) Excavation must be kept to a minimum and must not impact upon any trees or bushland.

f) The size of the area will depend on site area but a minimum depth of 10 metres should be taken as a guide. This area may increase if shallow bedrock occurs and/or the establishment of any works defined under part c) of this section cannot be achieved.

g) Where there is insufficient space for a buffer due to the orientation, size or location of the site, then the applicant must show how the adjacent bushland can be adequately protected according to the aims and objectives of this Plan.

The Bushland Area of the property commences on the land immediately below the constructed retaining walls and continues right down to the southern boundary.

 

Balconies encroach into the 10m buffer zone, however the 10m buffer area setback has been provided from the rear boundary.  Given the site has an area of environmental protection  land located at the rear of the site measuring approximately 1,200m², the 10m buffer zone should be measured from the start of this area.  However given that the  bushland onsite starts on the land immediately below the construction retaining walls, as advised above,  Villas 01 to 06 effectively encroach fully into the buffer area.

 

No – Section 5.1 of Part H has not been complied with.

5.3 Building Area

 

 

a) Buildings, including swimming pools and outbuildings, are only permitted within this area up to the common boundary with the buffer area.

 

 

Figure 1: Plan view of site area

Figure 2: Section view of site area

Refer comments above – building area available to the site is significantly reduced due to the bushland onsite and environmental protection land zoned at the rear of the site.

 

The 10m buffer zone has been applied from the rear boundary, however, according to Figures 1 and 2 the buffer zone effectively commences from the constructed retaining walls as the bushland for the site commences immediately below the constructed retaining walls.

 

 

No

H.6 Location and Design of Development

6.1 Location

 

 

a) The location and design of development must aim to maximise the retention and protection of:

I. local indigenous plants, particularly if rare or uncommon in Lane Cove,

II. native fauna habitat,

III. the natural features of the site such as rock outcrops, cliffs and escarpments, ....

The proposal does not maximise the retention and protection of the trees, bushland and vegetation on site, including species identified as endangered ecological communities.

 

The property contains a number of significant natural sandstone rock outcrops which would be removed if the development proceeds.

No

6.2 Building Design and Visual Impact

a)  Building design should have regard to the visual impact for users of the adjacent public bushland.

 

 

 

 

 

 

b)  All external building materials, finishes and colours should be non-reflective and blend with the natural landscape.

 

c) The exposed portions of swimming pools, tanks, support structures or the undercroft of buildings should be screened and finished in dark non-reflective colours to minimise the visual impact along with screen planting using local indigenous species.

Highly elevated glassed rear elevation would have visual amenity impacts to adjacent public bushland as well as light glare issues to wildlife. The proposed building does not comply with DCP Part H 6.2a because it would have a visual impact for users of the adjacent Harry Howard walking track.

 

Insufficient information provided as the schedule of finishes on the plans provide minimal information.

 

 

Insufficient information provided for the treatment of the undercroft area.

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insufficient information provided.

 

 

Insufficient information provided.

6.2.1 Solar Access and Views

 

 

a) The placement, orientation and design of proposed structures, as well as alterations and additions to existing structures, shall have regard to the existing level of views of the bushland from adjoining and nearby properties and the impact on those views should be minimised.

b) Proposed new buildings and structures are to be designed and orientated in order that a reasonable level of sun access is maintained to the adjoining bushland throughout the year, in order to ensure that the viability of the bushland is not threatened or adversely affected.

Insufficient information provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insufficient information provided.  Solar access diagrams were not provided to carry out an assessment of the overshadowning impacts to the bushland.

Insufficient information provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insufficient information provided.

6.2.2 Bushfire Controls

a) All development on bush fire prone land should comply with the aims and objectives of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006, by the NSW Rural Fire Service.

b) Building design, including the layout and shape of the house, roof external openings, underfloor areas, construction material and landscape design must address the risk of bushfire.

The proposed development would result in the destruction of bushland in the ‘Bushland Area’ and the proposed ‘Buffer Area’ would be highly modified in order to provide an Asset Protection Zone for the development. 

 

The Standards for Asset Protection Zones (NSW RFS) states that an APZ provides a buffer zone between a bushfire hazard and an asset.   The proposal includes balconies in the APZ area and is therefore contrary to the NSW RFS requirements.

 

The proposal incorporates the APZ in the Buffer Zone.   RFS Standards for Asset Protection Zones require that native trees and shrubs maintain a cover of no more than 20% of the APZ area.   This would result in the loss of a large number of trees that form part of an Endangered Ecological Community (Sydney Blue Gum High Forrest) and would leave riparian land on the buffer zone prone to soil erosion.

No

H.7 Preparation of a Landscape Plan for Building and Buffer Areas

 

a) All applications must include a Landscape Plan. Details of the plan must be in accordance with the policies and landscape guidelines of Council.

The landscape plan does not provide sufficient information and is inadequate.

Insufficient information provided.

H.8 Preparation of a Bushland Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan for Bushland Area

a) A Bushland Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced environmental consultant specialising in bushland management must be submitted. A landscape architect or designer is unsuitable.

 A Bushland Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan has not been provided for the site, environmental protection land at the rear of the site or within the walking track for which works appear to be proposed.

No

H.9 Preparation of a Stormwater Plan

a) All applications must include a Stormwater Plan in accordance with Part O Stormwater Management. Further information may be obtained from Council's Open Space & Urban Services Division.

Inadequate details have been submitted with the application in terms of stormwater management and the effects on the bushland the proposed stormwater management would have to the site and riparian corridor located adjacent to the site.

Insufficient information provided.

H.10 Preparation of a Sediment Control Plan

a) All soil erosion, sedimentation and drainage controls must be wholly situated within the buffer and building areas.

b) An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) prepared by a suitably qualified consultant, in accordance with this DCP - Part P Stormwater Management, is to be submitted with the DA.

The application has not clearly demonstrated that erosion and sediment controls have been adequately addressed and an ESCP has not been provided.

No

 

 

 

No

 

In accordance with the above compliance table and comments by Council’s Bushland Officer, the development is not compliant with Part H – Bushland Protection of Lane Cove DCP2010 and is not supported. 

 

Part J – Landscaping

 

In accordance with comments provided by Council’s Landscape Architect and Tree Officer the development has not demonstrated compliance with Part J – Landscaping of Lane Cove DCP2010 and is not supported.

 

Part O - Stormwater Management.

 

In accordance with comments provided by Council’s Development Engineer the development has demonstrated compliance with Part O - Stormwater Management of Lane Cove DCP2010.

 

Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation

 

In accordance with comments provided by Council’s Waste Management Coordinator the development has not demonstrated compliance with Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation of Lane Cove DCP2010 and is not supported.

 

Part R – Traffic Impacts and Car parking

 

PART R TRAFFIC, TRANSPORT AND PARKING

Development Control

Proposed

Complies

2.2 Car Parking Rates

 

 

Multi-Dwelling Housing

 

 

Table 1 – Car parking rates

 

Residents:

0.5 spaces per studio

1 space per 1-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

2 spaces per 3+ bedroom unit

 

Dwelling mix:

7 x 4-bedroom units

 

 

Required:

4 bed: 7 x 2 = 14 spaces

Total: 18 spaces

Provided:

14 residential spaces

Each unit is allocated 2 parking spaces

 

 

 

Yes

1 disabled space for each adaptable housing unit

Adaptable dwelling not provided, however 1 disable space provided

 

Yes

Visitor Parking:

1 space per 4 units

1 disabled space per 50 visitor spaces (min. 1 disabled space)

Required:

7 units/4 = 1.75 (2) spaces

 

Provided:

0 visitor spaces

 

 

 

 

No

 

In accordance with comments provided by Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer and the above compliance table, the development has not provided adequate parking provisions in accordance with Part R of Lane Cove DCP 2010 and is not supported.

 

Referrals

 

Referrals where carried out to Council’s Ecology Consultant, Bushland Consultant, Landscape Architect, Tree Assessment Officer, Traffic Engineer, Development Engineer, Environmental Health Officer and Waste Coordinator for assessment and advice within their areas of expertise.

 

The following is a summary of the referrals provided by Council’s referral staff with comments provided below of the implications these comments have on the proposed development.

 

Ecology

 

As previously discussed the assessment provided by the applicant’s ecological assessment report was unable to clarify with any certainty that Endangered Ecological Communities were present on the site.  However Council’s Consulting Ecologist Mr Mark Harris concluded within the Threatened Ecological Community Determination Report (AT-8) dated 16 March 2018 on page 23 that:- 

 

“All native vegetation within the subject land comprises:

 

Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Critically Endangered Ecological Community (BC Act);

 

Blue Gum High Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion Critically Endangered Ecological Community (EPBC Act).”

 

This determination that the site has an endangered ecological community onsite has significant implications on the proposal.  The assessment carried out by Council’s Bushland Consultant Ms Susan Butler has provided detailed comments on the likely impacts the proposed development would have on the site and associated bushland and concluded that the proposed development would have detrimental impacts to the bushland and endangered ecological community on and adjoining the site (refer below).  

 

Bushland Consultant

 

Council’s Bushland Consultant Ms Susan Butler carried out an assessment of the amended proposal and has provided comments in terms of the impacts the proposed development would have on the endangered ecological community and bushland on and adjoining the site. 

 

The following executive summary on page 4 of the Assessment of impacts of proposed development on Bushland dated 8 April 2018 (AT-9): 

 

“Endangered Ecological Communities

 

The vegetation on site has characteristics of intergrades between 3 Endangered Ecological Communities, Blue Gum High Forest, Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest and Littoral Rainforest. Blue Gum High Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion was found to have the best matching species assemblage overall.

 

The proposed development will remove most of the Endangered Ecological Community within the site and will have a detrimental impact on the Endangered Ecological Communities that exist on the adjacent public bushland. The applicant has not considered the relationship of the Endangered Ecological Community on site with that within Stringybark Reserve.

 

SEPP 19 Bushland in Urban Areas

 

The applicant has not considered SEPP 19 in any way. The impact of the proposed development on the general and specific aims of SEPP 19 need to be addressed in detail.

 

Clause 9 and Clause 6 need to be addressed.

 

Environmental Protection land

 

The applicant has not considered the character and extent of the Environmental Protection Land as gazetted in December 2017. The applicant has not specifically addressed the impact of the proposed development on the Environmental Protection land. The extent of the proposed building intrusion into the Environmental Protection land has been given little if any consideration by the applicant. Bushland within the Environmental Protection land will be irreparably damaged by this proposal.

 

DCP Part H – Bushland Protection

 

There has been no assessment of the existing bushland on site and its relationship to DCP Part H. The applicant has also failed to consider that part of the site identified as Environmental Protection land to be part of the Bushland Area and then to apply a suitable buffer to that before identifying the Building Area.

 

DCP Part J – Landscaping

 

The percentage of trees to be retained on site is significantly less than 50%, with only 16 trees within the site shown to be retained. There appears to be some trees wholly or partially on Council land shown to be removed but no owner’s consent has been obtained. There has been no consideration of Council’s Significant Tree Policy. The loss of such a large number of remnant indigenous trees that form the most significant part of the Endangered Ecological Communities will have a significant and irreparable impact on those Communities.

 

Bushfire Asset Protection Zone

 

The proposed landscaping of additional tree planting and supplementary planting to introduce structural complexity has not been considered in this supplementary report, nor has the impact of any further planting to provide visual screening between the Harry Howard Bush Walk and the proposed development. There has been no consideration of the potential for natural regeneration of shrubs, vines and climbers that are characteristic components of the Endangered Ecological Community within the Environmental Protection land or Stringybark Reserve and the conflict between managing bush fire risk and protecting the Endangered Ecological Communities on and adjacent to the site.”

 

Comment: This assessment has concluded that the proposed development would have a significant detrimental impact to the endangered ecological community on and adjoining the site with significant conflicts between the asset protection zone requirements by the Rural Fire Services and retention of significant trees.  As a result of this assessment and the likely unacceptable impacts the development would have to the endangered ecological community and bushland on site, the application is not supported.

 

 

Tree Assessment Officer

 

Council’s Tree Assessment Officer (Arborist) has reviewed the amended proposal and has indicated that the original comments provided have not been addressed.  These comments were as follows:-

 

a)      “Fifty six (56) high value trees have been proposed to be removed; these trees are considered to be of good health and structure. These trees are also considered to be retainable in the medium to long term (15-40+ years). Of these trees ten (10) have been identified as very high value in the Arborists report provided;

b)      A further Thirty (30) lower value trees have also been identified for removal. While these trees may be of lesser health and structure they are likely to be contributing to the ecology of the site providing habitat and fodder for native wildlife residing in the endangered ecological communities at the rear of the site. Noxious weeds are not considered in this determination;

c)      The species of trees that have been proposed to be removed are inclusive of but not limited to Syncarpia glomulifera (Sydney Turpentine), Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum), Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum), Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt) and Glochidion ferdinandi (Cheese tree). All of these species are considered to be members of endangered ecological communities in the Lane Cove area;

d)      Correct Arboricultural practice strives to retain and manage trees that are currently and would continue to contribute to their environment for years to come. The removal of such a high volume of native healthy trees to allow for the proposal is questionable tree management practice;

e)      Part J section 1.2 of the DCP states that the conservation of significant areas of bushland and the general leafy landscape character of the suburbs of Lane Cove is a major priority for the local community. This proposal does not meet the priorities of the local community;

f)       Section 2.2 of the DCP (Tree Preservation Regulatory Controls) states that the retention of the maximum possible number of trees, particularly native trees within the municipality in healthy condition, natural form and shape. This proposal is inconsistent with council’s objectives;

g)      The proposal is conflicting with the objectives in section 3.1 of the DCP, preservation of significant trees; and

h)      It is not possible for the proposal to meet the requirement of a replacement planting ratio of 1:1 specified in Landscaping Section J.”

 

Comment: The amended plans and documentation fails to satisfactorily address the above issues.   The amended Tree Schedule to Appendix 2 of the Arborist report has amended the amount of trees to be removed to a total of 66 trees and maintains that a replanting schedule of 1:1 would be done ‘elsewhere on the property or in the local area’.  This 1:1 planting schedule has not been provided and the landscape plan indicates an additional five (5) trees to be replanted.  It is also unclear as to where this planting would be proposed in the local area as the requirement is to have trees on the site replaced on the site.  Proposing replanting in another location is unrealistic as there would be no benefit to the site which is the objective of this requirement. 

 

Whilst there is a reduction to the total 134 trees that were listed to be removed, the Arborist report still identifies 48 trees that have the potential to be impacted by the development.  The site is also to be maintained as an Inner Protection Zone in accordance with section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones'.  The Arborist report fails to adequately address the implications of this Inner Protection Zone requirement and what impact this would have to the vegetation onsite. 

 

The proposed stormwater trench on the amended stormwater plans has not been assessed by the project arborist for impacts to any TPZ of the surrounding trees nor has any tree protection measures been provided.

 

The applicant has submitted amended stormwater plans detailing dispersal trenching which appear to be within the structural root zones of trees to be retained.  The applicant has not provided any additional arboricultural assessment on the potential impacts this trench may have to these trees.

 

The amended proposal has not adequately addressed the above issues and given the proposal remains significantly unchanged, Council’s Tree Assessment Officer does not support the amended proposal.

 

Landscaping

 

Council’s Landscape Architect has reviewed the proposed development and outlined that the proposed development is inconsistent with Part J – Landscaping of LCDCP and has provided the following comments:- 

 

“Council’s LEP 2009 identifies a large portion of the site as Environmental Protection Land which states:

 

“Despite any other provision of this Plan, development consent must not be granted for development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority has considered the impact of the proposed development on the vegetation, topography and distinctive features of the land”.

 

Council has considered the impacts of the proposed development and has determined that there would be too much adverse impact on the vegetation, topography and the distinctive features of the land and has refused the application.

 

The landscape plans submitted are inadequate and are not in accordance with the Development Application Landscape Checklist and are therefore recommended for refusal.

 

Clause 1.2 Landscape context of Lane Cove: the proposed development is not in keeping with the context of Lane Cove and one of the major priorities of the local community which states that “The conservation of the significant areas of bushland and the general leafy landscape character of the suburbs of Lane Cove is a major priority for the local community and is reflected in Council’s plans and policies.”

 

Clause 1.4.3 States “The development should retain existing trees where reasonably possible and should not require unnecessary tree removal. Indigenous canopy trees should be provided where space permits. In particular where tree removal is required compensatory tree planting is required. Street trees are a community asset and approval to remove because of a development application is not readily available.”  The proposed development does not meet with this objective.

 

Clause 1.4.5 States “The proposed landscape treatment should be compatible with the existing environmental character of the area and be planned so as not to affect adjoining properties  The use of native trees and shrubs to provide privacy screening is desirable.”

The proposed development does not meet with this objective.

 

Clause 1.4.8 StatesHard paved areas should be minimised thereby providing the maximum landscaped area possible. The utilisation of permeable paving materials in hard-scapes is encouraged.” The proposed development does not meet with this objective.

 

Clause 1.4.12 StatesTrees that are removed as part of the DA process must be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. Replacement trees must be able to reach the potential mature dimensions of the removed tree.”  The proposed development does not meet with this objective.

 

Clause J.2 Tree Preservation and Landscape Guidelines Objective 1 States: “The preservation, re-establishment and reinforcement of the part of the environmental character of the Municipality which is related to the large number and significant areas of indigenous trees and other flora still existing and deserving of conservation.”  The proposed development does not meet with this objective.

 

Landscape Documentation:  The submitted landscape plans have not clearly delineated the proposed landscaped area in accordance with Part J- Landscaping of Lane Cove DCP 2010 and the Development Application Landscape Checklist.  

 

Plant selection:  Due to the proximity to the bush and a riparian corridor, all plants to be installed are to be selected from Council’s document Trees and Shrubs Native to the Lane Cove Area and most Suitable for Your Garden, which also appears in Appendix 1 of Part J Landscaping.  The submitted landscape plans do not provide an adequate planting schedule utilising the above mentioned species list.

 

·        Arboricultural Impact Appraisal:

 

The opening summary of the report states “if adequate precautions to protect the retained trees are specified and implemented through the arboricultural method statement included in this report, the development proposal is expected to have adverse impact on the contribution of trees to local amenity or character.” 

 

This can only be interpreted as meaning  the proposed development in its current form is not supported by the consulting arborist as it would have too much of a detrimental impact on the site and the environment as a whole.

 

Section 1.2 Purpose of this report states “Its primary purpose is for the council to review the tree information in support of the planning submission and use as the basis for issuing a planning consent or engaging in further discussion towards that end”

 

This can only be interpreted as meaning the proposed development in its current form is supported by the consulting arborist and that Council should grant a planning consent even with the destruction of 56 high category trees.  This is not consistent with the previous comments made by the consulting arborist.

 

The consulting arborist has not taken into consideration Lane Cove Council’s tree replenishment policy of a 1:1 ratio or of Lane Cove Council’s DCP part J – Landscaping or Lane Cove Council’s Development Application Landscape Checklist.

 

Section 3.2.2 The report fails to list tree 101 which is categorised as AA2 tree on the Tree Schedule in Appendix 2 however, it is listed only as an A tree on the Summery of existing trees in Table 1 and finally it is listed as a AA tree on TMP01.  Although the categorising of this tree is inconsistent, the fact remains that it is an important tree worthy of protection yet it has been omitted from the Detailed Impact Appraisal section which could lead to the tree not receiving the proper protection it deserves or its removal.

 

Section 3.3.2 New planting: The report states “In the context of the loss of trees, a comprehensive new landscaping scheme is proposed including new trees to be planted within available areas in prominent locations.” However in the Section 1.4 Documents and Information provided, the report lists only the following documents as provided by Green Wall Property Developers:-

 

·        Survey Plan, Dwg No. 16220_DET_1Am, by Survey Plus dated 12 April 2017;

·        Roof Plan and Elevations

 

Given that the project arborist has not reviewed the proposed landscape plans and the landscape plans submitted do not show any trees or their locations, it cannot be concluded by the consulting arborist that “a comprehensive new landscaping scheme is proposed”.   It is also noted that the stormwater concept plans were not reviewed by the consulting arborist and the impact on existing trees from the pipes has not been carried out.

 

Section 3.3.3 Summary of the impact on local amenity: the report concludes that the development proposal is expected to have adverse impact on the contribution of trees to local amenity and character which is not consistent with the content of the report. 

 

·        Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006

 

In order to facilitate the proposed development in addition to the major loss of significant trees and the damage this would have on the environment, the required Asset Protection Zone would further denigrate the bushland nature of the site as the following restrictions or conditions would be imposed:-

 

o   Non-contiguous tree canopies and shrub layers – which would lead to further tree removal and excessive pruning;

o   Plant and maintain short green grass around the house – which is non-compliant with part J landscaping; and

o   Gardens to be in clusters managed as clumps or islands with covering of no more than 20% - which leaves a very small percentage of the existing vegetation on site.

 

·        Riparian Land

 

The subject site is affected by riparian land and must be assessed as an integrated development therefore the Department of Primary Industries shall be contacted by the applicant for an assessment of the proposed works.

 

Comment:  A referral was sent to Water NSW on 16 November 2017.  An email was received by Water NSW on 10 January 2018 confirming that the proposal was integrated development and a cheque for $320.00 was required in order for Water NSW to process the referral accordingly.

 

The applicant was advised by e-mail on 11 January 2018 that the proposed development was determined as integrated development by Water NSW. 

 

It was advised by the applicant on 23 March 2018 that a cheque for $320.00 would not be provided and that the integrated referral would be carried out post determination should approval be given by the Local Planning Panel.

Development Engineer

 

Council’s Development Engineer has raised no objections to the amended proposal subject to draft conditions.

 

 

Traffic Engineer

 

Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer does not support the proposal as non-compliances have been identified and insufficient information has been submitted to Council for review.

 

·    The number of spaces in the tandem parking configuration exceeds 10% of the overall parking stock which is not in accordance with Clause 2.9 of Part R of the DCP;

·    There are insufficient parking spaces provided in accordance with Part R of Council’s DCP;

·    The accessible parking space does not comply with AS2890.6 as it does not have a shared space;

·    The architectural plan does not have sufficient information in regards to the RLs or gradient of the driveway;

·    The applicant has not demonstrated that the shared driveway meets the minimum sight distance requirements in accordance with AS2890.1;

·    The applicant has not assessed or addressed the potential vehicular conflict points of proposed driveway as it is shared with neighbouring properties;

·    The proposed car park design shall comply with AS 2890.1-2004. This includes all parking spaces, ramps, aisles, disabled parking and loading areas. All other aspects of the Car Parking areas are required to comply with AS 2890.2-2002 for Loading Facilities and Services Vehicles. This has not been adequately demonstrated;

·    A pedestrian pathway must be provided to ensure pedestrian safety into the development.

·    Provide dimensions of the combined driveway and demonstrate that vehicles can enter and exit the site safely and simultaneously; and

·    The access to the car park shall comply with Australian Standards. AS 2890.1-2004.

 

Environmental Health

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer does not support the application as insufficient information has been submitted for Council to review.  This information is as follows:

 

·        Remediation Action Plan

 

The Detailed Site investigation completed by Benviron Group Ref:E1516 (October 17) states that the site requires remediation in order to render the site suitable for the proposed development. As such a Remediation Action Plan is to be submitted for Council’s review. Council reserves the right to request that the RAP and validation report at the conclusion of excavation works be reviewed by a NSW EPA Accredited Site Auditor.

 

 

 

·        Acoustic Report

 

An acoustic report is to be submitted which addresses the impact of the proposed mechanical plant and equipment, potential impact from outside noise sources such as traffic. The acoustic report is to be carried out by an appropriately qualified and practicing acoustical consultant.

 

·        Environmental management plan

 

An environmental management plan is to be submitted for the construction phase of the project that addresses demolition, asbestos management, site water management and sediment and erosion controls, as well as dust management.

 

Planner’s Comment: The applicant has not provided the above additional information requested by Council’s Environmental Health Officer and is not supported.

 

Waste Management

 

Council’s Waste Coordinator does not support the application as insufficient information has been submitted for Council to review.  This information is as follows:

 

·        Onsite Waste Collection

 

The Statement of Environmental Effects refers to Part Q of the DCP and states the development meets the objectives/criteria but does not provide any information on how this is done.

 

·        Waste Management Plan

 

The amended Waste Management Plan is inadequate as it does not address the onsite collection of waste nor provide details on how the bins would be serviced.

 

·        Bin Storage Areas

 

Street Level Plan A-101 shows a room labelled ‘garbage’ but does not provided in dimensions, nor is a loading area provided for the waste collection vehicle. The provided Traffic Management Plan does not address service vehicles onsite.

 

·        Internal Waste Management

 

The provided plans do not show the location of the internal waste/recycling cupboards as required under the DCP. 

 

·        Individual or Communal Compost

 

The provided plans do not show the location of the communal compost container as required under the DCP, nor is reference made to the provision of such in the WMP.

 

 

 

 

 

Planner’s Comment:-

 

The applicant has submitted an amended Waste Management plan.  This plan, however, has not addressed the issue of how the waste bins are to be serviced.  The amended plans indicate a garbage area identified as “H” next to Villa 7’s western elevation. 

 

The proposed development is to accommodate 2 x 240l general waste bins, 1 x 240l paper recycling bin and 1 x 240l mixed container bin.  This is a total of 4 x 240l bins and it is unclear as to whether this garbage area can accommodate all 4 bins for the site and how these bins would be transported to the kerbside for collection.

 

The amended Waste Management plan has not addressed the internal waste management or individual /communal compost locations.

 

The application is not supported by Council’s Waste Coordinator

 

Building 

 

Council’s Senior Building Surveyor has raised no objections to the proposed development subject to draft conditions.

 

(iv)       Section 94 - Development Contributions Plan

 

Section 94 Contribution

 

The proposed development would increase the population living on the site.  There would be 7 dwellings in the proposed development.  Each dwelling comprises 4 bedrooms. 

 

The S94 plan has specified the average number of people per dwelling, based on the number of bedrooms.  The occupancy rates are:-

 

·    3 persons per 4 bedroom unit in medium density developments

 

The S94 contribution for each dwelling of the proposed multi dwelling housing development is calculated at the current rate of $10,100 per person (2017-2018) as follows:-

 

 

Medium density developments (including attached dual occupancy and duplexes):

 

No. bedrooms

Average occupancy

Amount of contribution per person

No. of Dwellings

Total contribution

4 Bedrooms

3 persons

$10,100.00 x 3 =

$30,300.00 per dwelling

7 x $30,300.00

$212,100.00

*Capped Rate

 

$20,000.00 per dwelling

7 x $20,000.00

$140,000.00

*N/B    The reforms to Local Development Contributions have a cap of $20,000 per residential lot or per dwelling limitation on local development contributions.

 

The development site has one x two bedroom dwelling.  14 Gay Street is a 2 bedroom dwelling.  For sites with an existing dwelling house (or houses) a credit is applicable.  This credit is calculated at the following rate:-

 

Separate Detached House (including detached dual occupancy):

 

No. Bedrooms

Average occupancy

Amount of contribution per person

No. of Dwellings

Total contribution

2 Bedrooms

2 persons

$10,100.00 x 2 =

$20,200.00 per dwelling

1 x $20,200.00

$20,200.00

*Capped Rate

 

$20,000.00 per dwelling

1 x $20,000.00

$20,000.00

*N/B    The reforms to Local Development Contributions have a cap of $20,000 per residential lot or per dwelling limitation on local development contributions.

 

The Section 94 Contribution credit for the existing dwelling is therefore $140,000 - $20,000 = $120,000.00.

 

A condition requiring S94 contribution would be included if the application was to be supported.

 

(v)        Applicable Regulations

 

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 indicates that the standards for demolition and removal of materials should meet with AS 2601-2001 and therefore any consent would require the application of a relevant condition seeking compliance with the Standard.

 

(b) The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality

 

All relevant issues regarding environmental impacts of the development are discussed elsewhere in this report. The development is not considered satisfactory in terms of environmental impacts and should be refused.

 

(c)  The suitability of the site for the development

 

A review of Council’s map of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (held on file) identifies that there are a number of constraints affecting the subject property including Environmental Protection Land, bushfire prone bushland, endangered ecological communities and riparian corridor.

 

The site is not considered to be suitable for the proposed development reasons outlined in this report.

 

(d) Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

 

In accordance with Council’s notification policy, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application. In response ninety-four (94) submissions were received.  All submissions are available to the Panel on the day of the meeting.

 

 

 

 

The primary issues raised in the submissions are as follows:-

 

·    Environmental impacts to trees, bushland and rear reserve – the tree removal is excessive and will have a significant impact;

 

Comment: The significant amount of tree removal required to accommodate the proposed development has been assessed by Council and found to have a significant impact to the bushland and endangered ecological community on and adjoining the site.

 

·    Non-compliance of LEP and DCP controls – the building height is over the permissible 5m and the controls in the DCP appear to have not been taken into consideration;

·    Building height – the development is too high for the area;

 

Comment: The proposed development has been assessed against the Lane Cove LEP 2009 and Lane Cove DCP 2010.  As demonstrated in this report the proposal does not comply with the provisions and numerical requirements under the LEP and DCP. 

 

Whilst the applicant submitted a Clause 4.6 variation to exceed the building height, this was found to be unsubstantiated and not well founded.  The building height proposed for the development is excessive for the locality and given the significant non-compliances with the DCP the proposed development is not supported.  

 

·    Traffic and parking issues – a childcare centre is located opposite the site which has impacted traffic and parking within the area and this development would increase the amount of traffic in an already congested area;

·    Access and safety - the site has a shared driveway with the two adjoining neighbouring properties which will cause a safety issue with vehicles from the proposed development and there is no separate pedestrian path onto and throughout the site for visitors which is a safety issue;

 

Comment:  Council’s Traffic Engineer has assessed the proposed application and has found that the applicant has not provided adequate information to carry out a full assessment of the impacts the proposed development would have in terms of traffic impacts.

 

·    Inappropriate/over development of the site – the amount of dwellings proposed is not appropriate for the site;

 

Comment: In terms of site area and zoning, the proposed number of dwellings can be accommodated on the site as each dwelling requires a minimum area of 250m².  Given the site is 2,801m² the seven (7) dwellings proposed is relatively conservative.  However the appropriateness of the site is primarily due to the bushland and vegetative state of the site.  The significant tree removal to accommodate the proposal is inappropriate and for this and other reasons the site is not considered to be appropriate for this type of development and is not supported. 

 

 

·    Privacy – the development will cause overlooking to neighbouring properties and the walking track;

·    Amenity – the increased number of dwellings will impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties in terms of loss of trees;

·    Noise – the number of dwellings proposed will result in increased noise levels from the future residents and cars traversing the site;

·    View loss – the loss of trees will impact the views from neighbouring properties and walking track;

 

Comment: The proposed development is considered to have significant privacy and amenity impacts to the surrounding locality.  The significant loss of trees and vegetation would have a detrimental impact to the site and surrounding locality in terms of the loss of the treed environment which has a high amenity value.  The rear windows and balconies would have privacy impacts to the rear walking track and adjoining properties.  The proposed rooftop parking spaces and vehicular movements would have amenity impacts in terms of noise generation.

 

Therefore amenity impacts the proposed development would have to the surrounding locality is not supported.

 

·    Waste management – there is not enough room to accommodate the number of bins on the street for the development;

 

Comment:  Council’s Waste Coordinator advised the applicant that collection from the street would not be possible and that collection from the site would be required.  Collection from the site has not been proposed by the applicant and insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the waste bin collection can be adequately accommodated from the street.

 

·    Insufficient information – the information lodged does not appear to have all the information required and not enough details are provided.

 

Comment: The proposed development has not provided adequate information or details to enable a full assessment of the proposal.  The applicant was requested to provide the additional information required to allow for a full assessment, however upon the applicant lodging amended plans and additional documentation, it was found that the information requested by Council failed to clarify the fundamental issue of whether this site contains endangered ecological communities of trees.

 

The above issues raised by the submissions have been taken into consideration during the assessment of the proposal.  As demonstrated throughout this report the proposal does not comply with the applicable development standards and controls set out under Lane Cove LEP 2009 and Lane Cove DCP 2010. 

 

The amended plans submitted have also not adequately addressed the concerns raised above as the proposed development would still have an unacceptable impact upon the environment as significant trees are being removed which are part of an endangered ecological community. 

 

Accordingly for the reasons set out in this report the proposed application not supported. 

 

(e)  The public interest

 

Having regard to the assessment contained in this report, it is considered that approval of the development is not in the public interest.

 

Conclusion

 

Upon consideration of the development against section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the relevant statutory and policy provisions, the proposal is not suitable for the site and is not in the public interest.

 

The proposed development fails to comply with Clause 4.3(2A) Height of building development standard of Lane Cove LEP2009.  A request for the variation to the building height standard has been considered and is not supported.

 

The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the environment with the significant and unacceptable loss of the trees, bushland and vegetation, which is identified as an endangered ecological community, and the required asset protection zone required for bushfire prone land. The required asset protection zone would require further tree and vegetation to be removed and would have an adverse impact upon soil erosion which in turn would then impact the riparian corridor adjacent to the site.

 

The application has also failed to demonstrate that the proposal is compliant with the requirements under Council’s DCP 2010 as insufficient information has been provided in terms of landscaping, traffic impacts, parking, safety, stormwater, environmental impacts to the bushland, accessibility, waste management and acoustic impacts.

 

The proposed development does not meet the provisions of the DCP relating to the Part C – Residential Development, Part H – Bushland Protection, Part J – Landscaping, Part O – Stormwater, Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation and Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking.

 

Based on the assessment of the application, the proposed development is not supported for reasons outlined in the report and it is recommended for refusal pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Act.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a multi dwelling development comprising of 7 dwellings, be refused for the following reasons:-

 

Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

 

1.       The development proposal has not adequately identified or assessed the likely impacts to  the endangered ecological community as required under Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

 

Particulars:

 

a)      The requirements under Part 7 Section 7.2 of the BC Act  are:-

 

7.2   Development or activity “likely to significantly affect threatened species”

(1)    For the purposes of this Part, development or an activity is likely to significantly affect threatened species if:

(a)  it is likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats, according to the test in section 7.3, or

(b)  the development exceeds the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold if the biodiversity offsets scheme applies to the impacts of the development on biodiversity values, or

(c)  it is carried out in a declared area of outstanding biodiversity value.

(2)  To avoid doubt, subsection (1) (b) does not apply to development that is an activity subject to environmental impact assessment under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

7.3   Test for determining whether proposed development or activity likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats

(1)  The following is to be taken into account for the purposes of determining whether a proposed development or activity is likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats:

(a)  in the case of a threatened species, whether the proposed development or activity is likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

(b)  in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the proposed development or activity:

(i)  is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

(c)  in relation to the habitat of a threatened species or ecological community:

(i)  the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the proposed development or activity, and

(ii)  whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed development or activity, and

(iii)  the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species or ecological community in the locality,

(d)  whether the proposed development or activity is likely to have an adverse effect on any declared area of outstanding biodiversity value (either directly or indirectly),

(e)  whether the proposed development or activity is or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to increase the impact of a key threatening process.

 

b)         The assessment of significance undertaken by the Ecological Assessment Report by First             Field Environmental dated 14 February 2018 is very superficial. A much more detailed             consideration of all the factors associated with the impact of the proposed development on t            he Blue Gum High Forest is

 

Aims of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

 

2.       The proposed development does not meet the aims of Clause 1.2(2) b), c), e) and f) of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

Particulars:

 

a)      Clause 1.2(2) ‘Aims of Plan’ provides the following relevant aims:-

 

“(2)    The particular aims of this Plan are as follows:

            …

(b)   to preserve and, where appropriate, improve the existing character, amenity and environmental quality of the land to which this Plan applies in accordance with the indicated expectations of the community;

(c)   in relation to residential development, to provide a housing mix and density that:

(i)      accords with urban consolidation principles, and

(ii)      is compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality, and

(iii)     has a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining development,

       …  

(e)  in relation to the management of open space, public and privately-owned bushland, riparian and foreshore land:-

(i)    to protect and, where possible, restore all bushland areas, including all rare and threatened species and communities, and

(ii)  to protect and, where possible, restore all riparian land along, and the inter-tidal zones and foreshores of, the Lane Cove River and Sydney Harbour and their tributary creeks, and

(iii)  to make more foreshore land available for public access, and

(iv)  to link existing open space areas for public enjoyment,

(f)  in relation to conservation:

(i)      to protect, maintain and effectively manage public and privately-owned watercourses and areas of riparian land, foreshores and bushland and, where possible, restore them to as close a state to natural as possible, and

(ii)     to ensure that development does not adversely affect the water quality or ecological systems of riparian land or other areas of natural environment, and

(iii)     to control all new buildings to ensure their compatibility with surrounding existing built form and natural environmental character, and

(iv)    to conserve heritage items,……”

b)      The proposed development does not meet Clause 1.2(2)(b) as, having regard to loss of trees and vegetation on site and the excessive bulk and scale of the built  it would not preserve and improve the existing character, amenity and environmental quality of the land and the expectations of the community.

c)      The proposed development does not meet the aims which are outlined in Clause 1.2(2)(c) of the LCLEP 2009 as it would not provide a housing mix and density that would be compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality, and does not have a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining properties.

d)      The proposed development does not meet the aims outlined in Clause 1.2(2)(e) of the LCLEP 2009 as the significant removal of trees and vegetation, including removal of endangered ecological communities, and the encroachment into the Environmental Protection Land at the rear of the property, does not protect or restore the bushland area, riparian land and threatened species that are located on the site. 

e)      The proposed development does not meet the aims of Clause 1.2(2)(f)(i) to (iv) of LCLEP 2009 as the development does not conserve or protect the riparian land located at the rear of the site, has an adverse effect on the areas of natural environment, would result in the removal of significant trees and vegetation that are identified and endangered ecological communities and does not ensure compatibility with the natural environmental character of the site.

 

SEPP 19 – Urban Bushland

 

3.       The proposed development does not satisfy the specific aims of Clause 2(2) (a) to (i) and (k) to (n) of State Environmental Planning Policy 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas.

 

Particulars:

 

a)      The specific aims of Clause 2(2) the SEPP 19 state:

 

 (2)    The specific aims of this policy are:-

 

(a)     to protect the remnants of plant communities which were once characteristic of land now within an urban area,

(b)     to retain bushland in parcels of a size and configuration which will enable the existing plant and animal communities to survive in the long term,

(c)     to protect rare and endangered flora and fauna species,

(d)     to protect habitats for native flora and fauna,

(e)     to protect wildlife corridors and vegetation links with other nearby bushland,

(f)      to protect bushland as a natural stabiliser of the soil surface,

(g)     to protect bushland for its scenic values, and to retain the unique visual identity of the landscape,

(h)     to protect significant geological features,

(i)      to protect existing landforms, such as natural drainage lines, watercourses and foreshores,

(j)      ........,

(k)     to protect the recreational potential of bushland,

(l)      to protect the educational potential of bushland,

(m)    to maintain bushland in locations which are readily accessible to the community, and

(n)     to promote the management of bushland in a manner which protects and enhances the quality of the bushland and facilitates public enjoyment of the bushland compatible with its conservation.

b)      The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(a) as the removal of trees and clearing of native bushland does not protect or preserve the remnants of plant communities;

c)      The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(b) would not allow for existing plant and animal communities to survive in the long term;

d)      The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(c) as the significant loss of tree species, including species identified as critically endangered ecological communities, specifically those trees/communities identified as being included as part of the Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest community and Sydney Bluegum High Forest, would decimate the endangered ecological communities on site;

e)      The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(d) as the proposed development result in the loss of existing and potential habitats for native flora and fauna;

f)       The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(e) as it would diminish the existing wildlife corridor and vegetation links to nearby bushland;

g)      The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(f) and (i) as the removal of trees and vegetation would impact the stability of the soil surface of the site causing potential soil erosion which would impact the watercourse;

h)      The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(g) as it would remove a significant scenic bushland vista from the locality that can been seen from surrounding streets;

i)        The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(h) as the proposal would have a significant impact on the natural rock formations of the site;

j)        The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(k), (l) and (m)  as it would remove the unique landscaped identity of the site that is incorporated into the rear bushland walking track impacting both the recreation and education potential of the bushland reserve and walking track;

k)      The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(n) as the removal of the trees and vegetation does not enhance or contribute to the conservation of the bushland on and adjacent to the site.

 

Height of Buildings

 

4.       The proposed development does not comply with the development standard or objectives for height of buildings in clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009.

 

Particulars:

 

a)      Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009 states:-

 

“4.3   Height of buildings

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a)  to minimise any overshadowing, loss of privacy and visual impacts of development on neighbouring properties, particularly where zones meet, and

(b)  to maximise sunlight for the public domain, and

(c)  to relate development to topography.

(2)  The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.

(2A)  Despite subclause (2), the maximum height for multi dwelling housing on land in Zone R2 Low Density Residential is 5 metres.”

b)      Pursuant to clause 4.3(2A) of LCLEP 2009, the maximum permissible building height for the subject site is 5m.

c)      The proposed development provides a maximum building height of between 8.238m and 11.16m and exceeds the maximum 5m building height permitted.

d)      The applicant has submitted a written request for the exception to the maximum building height development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009.

e)      The Clause 4.6 request has not demonstrated that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary nor that there are sufficient environmental grounds to justify contravening the development standard. The written request fails to demonstrate that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and the matters required to be demonstrated have not been adequately addressed (cl 4.6(3)(a) and cl 4.6(4)(a)(i)).

f)       Compliance with the development standard in clause 4.3(2A) of LCLEP 2009 is not considered unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

g)      The written request fails to demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard and the matters required to be demonstrated have not been adequately addressed (cl 4.6(3)(b) and cl 4.6(4)(a)(i)) and, as such, the variation sought to the maximum building height permitted is not considered to result in a better planning outcome.

h)      The proposed development and variation from the standard is inconsistent with the objectives of the zone (cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii)) and would not be in the public interest because it is inconsistent with the objective of the standard in clause 4.3(2A) of LCLEP 2009 (cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii)).  The variation sought to the maximum building height standard is not supported as the proposed development does not meet the objectives of Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings as the design of the proposal is not considered to respond to the topography of the land.

 

Endangered Ecological Community and Tree Impacts

 

5.       The proposed development would have unacceptable impacts to the endangered ecological community located on and adjoining the site.

 

Particulars:

 

a)  The submitted arborists' report is insufficient and fails to address the full impacts of the development proposal to the site’s endangered ecological community and vegetation.

b)  The ecological assessment report is considered to be insufficient as it has failed to consider the extent of impact to and potential loss of the endangered ecological community on site.

c)  The arborists' report and ecological assessment report have failed to assess the potential impact the site being maintained as an Inner Protection Zone in accordance with section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones' would have. 

d)  The arborists’ report has not assessed the potential impacts the amended stormwater proposal would have to the existing trees to be retained on site.

 

 

Non-compliance of controls set out in Part C – Residential Development of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010

 

6.       The proposed development does not comply with the controls set out in Part C – Residential Development -  Section C.2 Attached Dwellings and Multi-dwelling Housing of Lane Cove  Development Control Plan 2010

 

Particulars:

 

a)   The proposed development does not meet general objectives 1 and 3 of Section 2.1 General Objectives as the proposed development is not compatible and complementary to the visual and environmental character of surrounding residential areas or protect the significant landscaped features of the site due to the significant loss of trees and vegetation proposed.

b)   The proposed development does not meet the numerical requirement of Provision a) of Section 2.2 Site Area and Frontage.  The minimum site width required is 20m at the building line where the proposal would have a site width of 18m.

c)   The proposed development is inconsistent with objectives 5, 9 and 10 of Section 2.3 Streetscape as the hard surface driveway significant tree and vegetation removal within the front and side setbacks does not provide an attractive street frontage nor does the removal of the trees and vegetation ensure the landscape setting is enhanced. The hard surface driveway does not provide any separate pedestrian access paths onto the development which does not improve pedestrian amenity.

d)   The proposed development is inconsistent with Provision a) of Section 2.3 Streetscape as the proposed multi-dwelling development does not respond to the lot pattern and rhythm of the street.

e)   The proposed development does not meet the numerical requirements of the front, side and rear setbacks in Section 2.4 Setbacks and is inconsistent with objectives 1, 3 and 4 of Section 2.4 Setbacks as the proposal does not compliment the streetscape, does not provide a visual buffer between dwellings and does not achieve a high level of amenity for the dwellings, neighbouring dwellings and public domain.

f)   The proposed development does not meet with the numerical controls within Section 2.5 Fences Provisions 1.4.2a) as the fencing proposed appears to be incorporated into retaining walls that are over the allowable height of 1.8 metres.

g)   The proposed development is inconsistent with Section 2.6 Landscaping Provisions a) and b) as the proposed landscaping does not relate to the ground level of the dwelling by direct access from a living area and the 35% landscaped area for each individual dwelling has not been adequately provided.

h)   The proposed development is inconsistent with Provisions a) to f) of Section 2.7 Cut and Fill as the proposed development:

·    does not relate to the existing topography,

·    has not adequately demonstrated that the level of excavation and fill is contained within the building footprint,

·    has not adopted an adequate split level approach to accommodate the topography of the site,

·    has proposed fill for the side retaining walls in excess of 1m,

·    has created cantilevered undercroft areas;

·    proposes significant tree removal.

i)    The proposed development is inconsistent with Section 2.8 Building Design Provisions b), c), d), f), g), h) and i)ii as:

·    The proposed development is not considered to be sympathetic to the adjoining and surrounding buildings or the environment;

·    The open space corridor and vegetation elements have not been maintained due to the significant amount of trees proposed for removal; 

·    The area devoted to driveways and turning areas has not been minimised as the circular vehicular access and turning areas are proposed on the entire ground floor concrete slab;

·    The development has not demonstrated that for sites with a slope of more than 5% each dwelling is to have a separate ground floor level with the difference being equal to the average slope of he site;

·    A concrete wall is proposed around the perimeter of the development which has not been clearly demonstrated on the plans as to height and extent of fill proposed;

·    The schedule of finished provided on the plans has the majority of the development as concrete, wood and dark to medium grey metal with very little detail in tones;

·    Villas 01 to 06 are 2 storey as opposed to single storey.

 

j)    The proposed development is inconsistent with Section 2.9.1 Provisions a), g) and h),  Section 2.9.2 Provision a) and Section  2.9.3 Provisions a), b) and e) as:

·    The ground floor parking and proposed landscaped private open space does not provide adequate privacy to the future residents of the development and the neighbouring properties;

·    The proposed development application has not provided an acoustic report by a suitable qualified acoustic consultant demonstrating that internal habitable rooms would not be impacted by high levels of external noise given that the car parking for the site is located directly above habitable rooms;

·    The proposed development with the elevated lower ground floor and balconies has  potential privacy impacts to the rear adjoining properties and from the public reserve walking track;

·    The proposed development has not provided solar access diagrams;

·    The proposed development does not provide adequate solar access provisions as skylights have been provided which do not appear to allow solar penetration to the lower ground floor master bedrooms;

·    The proposed development does not provide the required amount of unbuilt upon private open space

·    The shared car parking and private open space areas at ground level do not provide adequate amenity for recreation purposes;

·    The proposed communal open space does not provide any facilities, amenities or active recreation areas.

k)   The proposed development does not meet with the numerical requirement under Section 2.10 Number of Car Parking, Motorcycle and Bicycle Spaces Provision b) as the proposed parking is at ground floor level which exceeds 1.2 metres above existing ground level which would have visual and acoustic privacy impacts to the future residents of the development and neighbouring properties.

 

 

Non-compliance of controls set out in Part F – Access and Mobility of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010

 

7.       The proposed development does not comply with the objectives and requirements set out in Part F – Access and Mobility of Lane Cove  Development Control Plan 2010

 

Particulars:

 

a)   The proposed development does not comply with the requirement under Section 3.1 Provision 3 as an accessibility report prepared by a suitably qualified access consultant was not provided with the application.

b)   The proposed development does not provide equitable access to the rear communal open space located at the rear of the site.

 

Non-compliance of controls set out in Part H – Bushland Protection of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010

 

8.       The proposed development has unacceptable impacts to the bushland and does not comply with the objectives and controls set out in Part H – Bushland Protection of Lane Cove  Development Control Plan 2010 

 

Particulars:

 

a)    The proposed development does not meet the objectives of Part H – Bushland Protection, Section H.1 of Lane  Cove DCP 2010 which are as follows:-

 

1.  To protect both public and private bushland from adjacent development which could result in any adverse change to the condition of bushland through altered moisture conditions, increased nutrient levels, soil movement , invasive or inappropriate plant species and proximity of development.

2.  To retain and protect natural topographic features, bushland areas, plant species and communities and native fauna habitat.

3.  To maintain and regenerate areas of natural bushland which have been defined as an essential character of Lane Cove.

4.  To acknowledge the importance of bushland to the character of the surrounding landscape and value of the locality and its importance to the region.

5.  To encourage innovation and attractive designs which acknowledge the importance of bushland areas through the control of building location, building form, soft and hard landscape elements and engineering controls.

The removal of trees and therefore loss of tree canopy would affect the integrity of Upper Stringybark Creek Reserve which is not in keeping with objective 2 above.

b)   The proposed development does not comply with Part H – Bushland Protection, Section 5.1, Provisions of Lane Cove DCP 2010 as the vegetation proposed to be removed as part of the development would create fragmentation of an already narrow vegetation corridor.

c)   The proposed development does not comply with Part H – Bushland Protection, Section 6.1, Provisions a)ii of Lane Cove DCP 2010 as vegetation lost through the proposed removal of trees would impact on the corridor connection for fauna habitat.

d)   The proposed development does not comply with Part H – Bushland Protection, Section 6.2 Provision a) because it would have a visual impact for users of the adjacent Harry Howard walking track.

e)   The proposed development does not comply with Part H – Bushland Protection, Section 6.2 Provision b) as the building materials, finishes and colours schedule provided on the plans, being primarily concrete, do not demonstrate that the development would blend in with the natural landscape.

f)    The proposed development’s height and setbacks of the building not comply with Part H Bushland Protection, Section 5.1. Provision e) and Section 6.2 Provision a) as they do not maximize the retention of local indigenous species, native fauna habitat or natural features.

g)   The proposed development does not comply with H – Bushland Protection, Section H.8 of Lane Cove DCP 2010 as the application has not included a Bushland Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan prepared by a suitably qualified environmental consultant.

 

Non-compliance of controls set out in Part J – Landscaping of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010

 

9.       The proposed development does not comply with the objectives and controls set out in Part J – Landscaping of Lane Cove  Development Control Plan 2010 

 

Particulars:-

 

a)   The proposed development is not in keeping with Part J Section 1.2 of LCDCP 2010 as the proposal does not conserve the significant areas of bushland and landscaped character of the locality.

b)   The proposed development does not comply with the objectives of Part J Section 1.4 of LCDCP 2010 as the proposal:-

 

·      does not maintain the existing landscape character of the locality;

·      existing natural features have not been preserved;

·      tree protection measures have not been adequately provided;

·      the details of irrigation systems have not been provided; and

·      the required replacement planting ratio of 1:1 has not been provided.

 

c)   The proposed development is not in keeping with the objectives of Part J Section 2.2 of LCDCP 2010 as the proposal does not retain the maximum number of trees on the site.

 

d)   The proposed development is not in keeping with the objectives of Part J Section 3.1 of DCP 2010 as the proposal seeks to remove significant trees that belong to an endangered ecological community.

 

Landscaping - Inadequate Information

 

10.     The proposed development provides inadequate information to enable a proper assessment of the proposed landscaping.

 

Particulars:-

 

a)   Landscaping and hardstand surfaces on the architectural plans and landscape plans do not correspond and details appear to be inconsistent.

 

b)   The Landscape plans submitted do not provide adequate information pertaining to the number of landscape retaining walls and other structural walls proposed. Inadequate information about these structures has been provided to determine whether they are acceptable from a safety and welfare of the public perspective, namely:-

 

·    Top of wall level;

·    Bottom of wall level;

·    Proposed construction materials;

·    Proposed construction methods;

·    Structural Engineering certification;

·    Drainage details;

·    Proposed footing details;

·    Maintenance details; and

·    Irrigation details.

 

c)   The Landscape plans do not include sections and elevations from all aspects, detailed annotations and construction details. The landscape plan has not adequately addressed the design principles in Part J of LCDCP 2010.

 

d)   The landscaped area and planting on structure calculations have not been provided demonstrating compliance with section 1.6 - in Part J of LCDCP 2010.

 

e)   The Landscape Plans have not demonstrated that the planting on structures provides  adequate soil depth, volume and a suitable soil profile to support the number of trees and shrubs indicated on the landscape plans as required by section 1.10 in Part J LCDCP 2010.

 

f)    The Landscape Plans have not incorporated the requirements of Part H – Bushland Protection, Section H.7 Preparation of a Landscape Plan for Building and Buffer Areas.

 

Traffic and Parking

 

11.     The proposed parking is unacceptable and does not comply with the requirements of Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking of LCDCP 2010.

 

Particulars:-

 

g)   Table 1 in Part R of LCDCP 2010 requires a minimum of 2 visitor parking spaces for multi-dwelling housing.  The development does not provide the required 2 visitor parking spaces.

 

           

Inadequate Information

 

12.     Inadequate information has been submitted to allow for an assessment of the application.

 

Particulars:-

 

h)   Insufficient landscape details have been provided to allow a full assessment;

i)    Solar access diagrams have not been provided to determine the potential overshadowing impacts the proposed development may have to the site, adjoining neighbouring properties and adjoining bushland reserve;

j)    An adequate waste management plan detailing bin storage and collection of waste reciprocals has not been submitted;

k)   A Remedial action plan is required to be submitted;

l)    An acoustic report is to be submitted which addresses the impact of the proposed mechanical plant and equipment, potential impact from outside noise sources such as traffic; and

m)  An environmental management plan is to be submitted for the construction phase of the project that addresses demolition, asbestos management, site water management and sediment and erosion controls, as well as dust management.

 

 

Public Interest

 

13.     The proposed development is not in the public interest having regarded to above contentions and impact on the amenity of the site, adjoining dwellings, bushland and the amenity of the general community. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Site Locality Map

1 Page

 

AT‑3View

Amended Ecological Assessment Report by Firstfield Environmental

83 Pages

 

AT‑4View

Threatened ecological community  by Southeast Engineering & Environmental - March 2018

31 Pages

 

AT‑5View

 Assessment of impacts of proposed development on Bushland - Susan Butler

16 Pages